WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/99 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Agencies for European programmes in Belgium.
C 219 E/172 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 (2000/C 219 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2470/99 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Prodiís comments on ácracks in European solidarityí According to newspaper reports, the gains made by the right in elections in Austria, Italy and Switzerland prompted the Commission President to warn, during a public appearance in Marzobotto, Italy, of ácracks in European solidarityí. Can the Commission answer the following: ü Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the original speech? ü How are we to interpret this warning? ü Which right-wing parties was the President referring to? ü Are the parties concerned democratic parties? ü What makes the Commission President think that the election results in Austria mean Europe is facing a ácrisisí? ü Could the President define more precisely the ácrisisí referred to? ü How is this crisis manifested? ü What information does the President have which would suggest that the election results in Austria are giving rise to cracks in European solidarity? ü What makes the Commission President think that the election results in Austria are giving rise to cracks in European solidarity? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) Unfortunately, there is no copy of the speech to which the Honourable Member refers, as it was not based on a written text. Although it is not up to the Commission as a rule to intervene in the domestic affairs of Member States, it is instructive here to recall the principle of solidarity enshrined in the preamble to the Treaty on European Union. It is also useful to recall Article 6(1) of the Treaty: The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. í Mr Prodi is very attached to the principle of solidarity, and the speech to which the Honourable Member refers must be interpreted in this light. (2000/C 219 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/99 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Agencies for European programmes in Belgium Is it correct that the Commission is planning to merge the three agencies in Belgium responsible for 1. implementing European programmes in the areas of education and training and further training (for the Flemish-, French- and German-speaking communities respectively) into a single agency which will be responsible for the whole of the country? 2. For how much longer will the system involving the three agencies definitely remain in place? 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/173 Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) A draft Commission Decision on the áprovisions relating to the responsibilities of the Member States and of the Commission vis-à-vis the national agenciesí has been prepared and will shortly be submitted to the College for adoption. This instrument aims to establish a single Community framework for implementing the three Community action programmes in the fields of education, vocational training and youth for the the period 2000-2006. Commission and of the countries participating in the programmes involving the national agencies. lays down the principles concerning the responsibilities of In particular, it The instrument indicates clearly that the national agencies will be created and appointed by the authorities in the participating Member States, as the Commission has no jurisdiction in this area. While it is true that the Commission encourages Member States to set up a single national agency, the decision concerning the number of agencies and the form they take remains fully within the competence of the participating Member States. Moreover, the particular institutional characteristics of Belgium, in particular the fact that the areas relating to the programmes fall exclusively within the competence of the federal bodies, have been fully recognised, and an explicit derogation has been provided in the text. In view of these facts, if the Honourable Member would like further information concerning the future organisation of the agency or agencies in Belgium, he should contact the Belgian representatives in the programmesí committees, who are appointed by the national authorities. The Directorate-General for Education and Culture will be happy to provide the addresses of the members of the committees. (2000/C 219 E/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2481/99 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Interpretation of the number of vessels which should have abandoned the use of drift nets in compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98 the Commission insists that In its reply of 23 November 1999 to question 2067/99 (1) on compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98 (2), the said Regulation is being complied with, since in monitoring compliance it is taking account of all vessels which used one or more drift nets, albeit for only one spell at sea, in each of the years of the period in question, namely 1995-97. This interpretation, if correct, would imply that only 60 % of all the vessels which fished in the aforementioned three-year period would have been eligible to fish in 1998. The number of vessels authorised to fish in 1998 would thus be appreciably higher than the actual number which, according to the Commissionís own figures, fished in the year in which the ban was established. Can the Commission say, then, whether the literal meaning of the Regulation can distort the resolve of the legislator B which was to eliminate one form of fishing gear gradually B with the result that it is bringing about an increase in the fleet using the said gear rather than the reduction sought? However, should both this interpretation and, as the Commission reply suggests, the use of the average number of vessels which fished in the 1995-97 reference period as the basis for calculation prove incorrect, can the Commission explain how it is interpreting Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1239/98 (Regulation (EC) No 894/97, Article 11a(3)) and is thus able to affirm that the Regulation is being complied with? See page 82. (1) (2) OJ L 171, 17. 6. 1998, p. 1