WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Call for proposals published in Official Journal C 227 of 10 August 1999.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/59 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1999) On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to draw the attention of the Italian authorities to the practice mentioned by the Honourable Member. Therefore, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to submit more details on the matter, in particular identifying precisely the places concerned by the practice mentioned, in order to allow the Commission to possibly start an investigation. Existing Community legislation on waste provides that Member States have to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. The abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste is in general prohibited (Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1)). These rules are specified as regards landfilling of waste by virtue of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (2). Therefore, uncontrolled dumping of plastic waste even within buildings, such as hangars, is certainly prohibited under existing Community legislation. (1) OJ L 194, 25. 7. 1975. (2) OJ L 182, 16. 7. 1999. (2000/C 219 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 November 1999) Subject: Call for proposals published in Official Journal C 227 of 10 August 1999 The edition of the Official Journal cited above contained a call for proposals for projects under the campaign against violence against women. The deadline for the submission of proposals was 21 September. On that day an association wishing to submit a proposal, after various earlier attempts to obtain the application form (which the local Commission office knew nothing about), succeeded in obtaining it by electronic mail, after repeated telephone calls to the office of the head of the information department of DG X. The recipient was told that there was no point in sending the form, as the successful proposals would be submitted by the Netherlands and Finland. Does the Commission generally know the identity of successful applicants before the proposals are 1. submitted or before the deadline for the submission of proposals has expired? 2. Why are the Commission offices in the Member Statesí capital cities not capable of providing specific information about calls for proposals published in the Official Journal? 3. What are the -no doubt serious and understandable -reasons that prompt Commission officials to select the winning applicants before the deadline for submitting proposals? If proceedings of this kind have become an unfortunate habit, is there any hope that the situation 4. will be improved with the entry into office of the new Commission? Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1999) This call for proposals consisted of two tranches: the first tranche was published on 7 April 1999 (1) with a deadline of 21 May 1999. In this first tranche 69 projects were submitted, and 30 were selected. The second tranche, which was justified because it was not possible to cover all Member States in the first tranche, was published on 10 August 1999 with a deadline for presentation of projects of 21 September 1999. C 219 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Item 5 of this second tranche (2), entitled Award criteriaí, notes that: In this second selection procedure, priority will be given to projects which provide the best cover of the Community as a whole, and the following countries in particular: Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Germanyí. It is possible that the person mentioned by the Honourable Member misinterpreted this information. The two tranches of the call for proposals were posted on the Europa site at two different addresses: http://europa. eu. int/eur-lex and http://europa. eu. int/comm/dg10/women/index. The Commission offices in the Member States have access to all the Official Journals and to the Europa site. The Commission sent out 333 forms in response to the requests it received. The selection was carried out in accordance with the rules and deadlines given in the call for proposals. (1) OJ C 94, 7. 4. 1999. (2) OJ C 227, 10. 8. 1999. (2000/C 219 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Council (9 November 1999) Subject: Action to combat corruption In the light of alarming indications of corruption on the part of leading figures in Russia, a recent G7 decision decreed a freeze on loans to Russia after calling for quarterly information about the state of accounts as a condition for restoring the flow of funds to the former Soviet empire. Would the Council set up a committee of inquiry concerning the destination of Community funds allocated to Russia under the cooperation agreements with that country? Reply (31 January 2000) The Honourable Member asks whether the Council would set up a committee of inquiry concerning the destination of Community funds allocated to Russia under the cooperation agreements with that country. The Council does not have the power to set up a committee of enquiry. Furthermore, under Article 274 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, responsibility for implementing the general budget of the Communities falls on the Commission. Similarly, loans from by the European Investment Bank, even if they are subsidised or guaranteed under the Community budget, are granted under the Bankís primary responsibility. Finally, it should be stressed that Russia is a sovereign State. Nevertheless, the Council uses the powers conferred on it by the treaties to ensure the greatest possible control of the use made of Community funds, particularly in Russia. In particular, the Council specified in Regulation (EC) 2802/98 (1) of 17 December 1998, organising the distribution in Russia of 1 850 000 tonnes of that a memorandum concluded by the Commission and the Russian authorities should make it possible for monitoring, auditing, control and evaluation to be carried out on Russian territory, in particular by the Court of Auditors or by outside bodies delegated by the Commission for the purpose. The Council also decided on 26 November 1999, during the second reading of the budget for 2000, to increase the appropriations for controlling the delivery of this aid from EUR 12,4 to 20,4 million. The particularly high proportion of financial means allocated to monitoring the operation demonstrates the importance that the Council attaches to this issue. foodstuffs for a sum of EUR 470 million,