WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998).
C 219 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1999) The CE mark substantiates the conformity of industrial products placed on the Community market 1. with all the obligations incumbent on manufacturers under technical harmonisation directives which require the mark to be affixed as proof of compliance with the safety, public health and user protection requirements. The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty provides, in Article 95 (ex Article 100a), for a high level of protection and that the CE mark thus conveys this message. With regard to the divergent interpretation given in the Member States to the CE mark as regards its meaning and scope, the Commission has taken steps to clarify the situation to determine, in particular, any potential overlapping betewen CE marking and voluntary national marks. The Commission will shortly publish a guide on the new approach and the global approach. The Commission leaves it to the market to confirm the important role of voluntary marks which have a genuine added value for all economic operators. However, the Commission opposes the affixing of marks encroaching on the scope covered by CE marking. 2. The multiplication of marks on the Community market, which have in some cases become necessary to ensure access to points of sale, entails considerable costs for European producers. Any overlapping between marks is a waste of resources. This multiplication of marks hampers the free movement of products and is detrimental to the competitiveness of companies. Moreover, the Commission is not convinced that a profusion of marks serves the consumerís need for information. The Commission has therefore come out in favour of a development that averts the proliferation of marks. Moreover, the Commission intends to compile a report on the implementation of Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 (1) concerning the conformity assessment procedures used in the technical harmonisation directives and CE marking for a global evaluation of the situation at the internal level and in relations with non-member countries following the implementation of certain agreements on mutual recognition. (1) OJ L 220, 30. 8. 1993. (2000/C 219 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 October 1999) Subject: Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998) Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or individuals, in connection with the Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998) included in the fourth framework programme (budget of ECU 358 million, equivalent to slightly less than ITL 700 billion? Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified? Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1999) The Biomed 2 programme, which covered all main areas of biomedical research, received a total of 3 550 multinational projects during the years 1995-1998. A total of 617 research contracts involving about 6 100 different teams were signed and funded. All 617 research projects are continuing in 1999 and consist of 287 concerted actions (148 of them ending in 1999), and 330 shared cost actions (157 of them 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/31 ending in 1999). Among the shared cost projects, 17 contracts are related to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy/transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (BSE/TSE) (mad cow) issue. In addition 92 small and medium-sized enterprise stimulatory measures have been concluded, including 61 exploratory awards (all of them ending in 1999) and 31 cooperative research (4 of which ending in 1999). Of the overall Biomed 2 funding to research activities, 85 % is awarded to public institutions and 15 % to private bodies. A listing with the participants in the Biomed 2 programme, the total cost by participant and the Commission participation, is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament. Concerning the verification of fund deployment and outcome of the initiatives, the Biomed 2 programme management ensured the review and the assessment of the activities until the end of 1998. The quality of life programme management, starting from January 1999 and up to the closing of all Biomed 2 contracts, will ensure that there is a review and an assessment of all ongoing activities related to Biomed 2 projects. Each scientific officer will continue to be in close contact with the project leaders by receiving the progress reports and responding to their needs. The Biomed 2 programme has established a project review board (PRB) consisting of external experts from all Member States (except Luxembourg) as well as from Norway and Iceland. The PRB has the task of assisting the Commission in the follow-up of ongoing projects through the analysis of periodic reports in view of the milestones outlined in the technical annexes of the contracts. During the years 1998-1999, the PRB will have reviewed a total of 98 contracts out of the 600 of Biomed 2. In addition, the Commission has established a system of external monitoring of the ongoing projects. The Biomed 2 programme has been monitored each year starting from 1995 and four reports have been produced for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. All the reports are available on request and were positive. The external monitoring of the Biomed programme for the year 1999 will be performed by the panel, which is monitoring the quality of life programme. (2000/C 219 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Rejection of citrus fruit restructuring programme in Greece (13 October 1999) According to published information the Commission has finally rejected the restructuring programme in the citrus fruit sector in Greece worth DRA 77 billion. which was submitted on 7 July 1998. In his reply to a previous question of mine on this topic (E-0002/99, 4. 3. 1999 (1)), Mr Fischler, the Commissioner responsible, mentioned that this programme was still being considered. Will the Commission say whether the above programme has been rejected and, if so, for what reasons? (1) OJ C 325, 12. 11. 1999, p. 57. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1999) By letter dated 7 July 1998, the Greek administration submitted to the Commission a draft programme for the improvement of citrus fruit production in Greece. The cost of this programme was EUR 294 million and Greece proposed that 75 % of this amount be financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) ü Guarantee Section while it would pay the remaining 25 %. By letter dated 23 November 1998, the Commission informed the Greek authorities that the amounts involved and the budgetary restrictions on this Section meant that the programme could not be financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section