WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/04 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Propagandist mileage from Community funding in the run-up to elections in Greece.
Date: 2004-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Structural Funds, advertising, election campaign publicity, electoral law, organisation of elections, political propaganda

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/345

(cid:1) the digitalisation of existing rights retained by the mortgage offices in the metropolitan areas of
Athens and Thessaloniki. This concerns some 12 million property rights out of an estimated total of
33 million property rights in Greece. It should enable a better service for land transactions through
decentralised service centres and mortgage offices.

As this is, in practice, an e-government project, it will be financed within the Operational Programme (OP)
‘Information Society’, with the Ktimatologio SA as the final beneficiary. The necessary credits will be
assigned to this operational programme in the framework of the mid-term review.

The estimated budget is EUR 110 million and a Community contribution of 50 % (EUR 55 million) is
requested. It will be completed by 2006 and only new contracts will be co-financed.

Although this proposal is the basis for an agreement with the Greek authorities, a firm decision for its co-
financing has not yet been taken. First, the OP ‘Information Society’ has to be revised in order to include
this project. Secondly, the final beneficiary must submit its proposal to the management authority of that
programme for approval. Finally, as this constitutes a major project, an application for confirmation of its
co-financing should be submitted to the Commission by the managing authority of the OP ‘Information
Society’. The whole procedure is likely to take until the Autumn of 2004.

The Commission does not envisage, at this stage, any further financial contribution to this project.
However, it will offer technical assistance for the implementation of the entire business plan from its Joint
Research Centre, insofar as this is requested by the Greek authorities.

(2004/C 84 E/0403)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Propagandist mileage from Community funding in the run-up to elections in Greece

Criticism has been voiced in the Greek press regarding the spate of propagandist media publicity in Greece
‘measures to improve
(particularly on television) being given to ‘new hospitals’,
educational standards’, etc. Many of which refer to the ‘2008 Community Support Framework’.

‘major projects’,

Is such publicity for EU-funded projects in the run-up to elections permissible under Regulation (EC) 1159/
2000 (1)? How many months prior to the date of elections must all such publicity be halted? What
penalties are imposable on Member States infringing the provisions of the above regulation? Can the
Commission take immediate action to end such promotional activity?

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 30.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be
carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds does not establish
specific rules relating to pre-electoral publicity. However, the Community Support Framework (CSF) for
Greece, for the period 2000-2006, states that information and publicity actions relating to Structural
Funds interventions should be suspended two months before European, national, district or municipal

C 84 E/346

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

elections. With regard to the national elections of 7 March 2004, the Commission was informed by the
Greek authorities that they issued the necessary instructions on 8 January 2004 to all ministries and other
bodies involved in the management of Structural Funds, in accordance with the CSF requirements.

The Commission has no information at its disposal suggesting a breach of the rules on this subject.

(2004/C 84 E/0404)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Arsenic acid

On 21 December, a large number of barrels of wood preservative were lost overboard from an Ethiopian
ship off the coast of the Netherlands. The ship had departed from England and had also called at the port
of Antwerp. Its ultimate destination was Ethiopia, via Bremen. An investigation has shown that there are
numerous questions to be answered concerning the registration and labelling of the barrels/substances and
the associated handling of the barrels/substances.

The wood preservative CCA contains copper oxide, chromium trioxide and arsenic acid. In 1992, the
1.
Netherlands Government decided to change the name of arsenic acid to arsenic pentoxide.
Is the
Commission aware that the name of one of the three active substances (arsenic acid) has been replaced by
a different name (arsenic pentoxide)?

2.
Does the Commission agree that these are two different chemical substances? According to disaster
response experts, the substances require different approaches to disaster response or recovery. (Different
UN numbers and GEVI (hazard identification) numbers).

3.

Have other Member States acted in a similar way?

4. What implications does this have in relation to Regulation (EC) No 142/97 (1), in which only arsenic
acid is mentioned as a classification?

5. What effect does this have on other legislation based on Regulation (EC) No 142/97?

6.

7.

Is the Netherlands Government seeking to evade European law by means of this classification?

If so, what measures will the Commission take to deal with this?

8. What role does Transport Directive 2002/59/EC (2) play with regard to this classification?

Did the competent authorities have a duty to notify other Member States of this transport operation,

9.
and did they comply in this case?

10.

If not, ought the ship to have left port?

How damaging is it if labels and bills of lading relating to toxic substances do not correspond to the

11.
content?

(1) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10.