WRITTEN QUESTION E-1558/99 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Regional funding.
C 170 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 Community vessels as of 1 January 2002. In view of the fact that the use of such gear by Member Statesí fleets may be phased out gradually, Article 1(4) of the abovementioned regulation provides that Member States shall communicate to the Commission the list of vessels authorised to carry out fishing activities using drift-nets for each target species, as listed in the annex to the Regulation, by 30 April 1998, the information shall be sent not later than 31 July 1998. Can the Commission provide a list of vessels which were authorised to carry out fishing activities 1. using drift-nets in the period 1995 to 1997? Can the Commission provide the lists of vessels authorised to carry out fishing activities using drift- 2. nets in 1998 and 1999 which should already have been submitted by the Member States? Based on a comparison of the lists requested, can the Commission guarantee that the provisions of 3. Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) 1239/98 are being complied with? (1) OJ L 171, 17. 6. 1998. p. 1. Joint answer to Written Questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1999) The Member States concerned have sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 11a(4) of Regulation (EC) 0894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (1). According to this information, the number of fishing vessels driftnetting for long finned tuna in the north- east Atlantic in the period from 1995 to 1997 and the number of vessels authorised to do so in 1998 and 1999 were as follows: France Ireland United Kingdom TOTAL 1995 60 12 76 1996 63 >30 8 77 1997 43 5 51 1998 1999 43 18 6 67 41 18 6 65 The information provided by the Member States in question shows that the requirement laid down in Article 11a(3) of Regulation (EC) 0894/97 is being complied with. The Commission will verify the data provided by the Member States for the 1995-1997 period as part of the checks conducted under Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2). (1) OJ L 132, 23. 5. 1997. (2) OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993. (2000/C 170 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1558/99 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Regional funding Is it really the case that Luxembourg, the richest Member State in per capita terms, has had the largest percentage in regional fund allocations under Agenda 2000? Does the Commission think this is justified? 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/35 Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (11 October 1999) Following the adoption of the new Structural Fund regulations (i. e. Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), Regulation (EC) 1261/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 June 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund (1) and Regulation (EC) 1262/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 June 1999 on the European Social Fund (1), the Commission decided on 1 July 1999 how the commitment appropriations would be divided up among the Member States under Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance outside Objective 1 regions in the period 2000-2006. These Commission decisions cover € 183 564 million of the € 195 010 million overall appropriation for the Structural Funds, at 1999 prices. Of that amount, Luxembourg will receive 0,04 %, which is the smallest share of the 15 Member States. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 170 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Parliamentary assistants employed by DG XII How many MEPsí assistants were employed by DG XII and the JRC during the last parliamentary 1. term, what type of contract did they have and what were their duties? Have any administrative or legal proceedings been initiated, or concluded, by the relevant Com- 2. mission departments, by OLAF or by other competent bodies, against individuals employed by DG XII with the above professional background? If so, and without prejudice, of course, to the rights of those in question and to any other relevant 3. provision, what type of charges were brought and what is the current status of the proceedings? Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1999) A certain number of the persons recruited by the former Directorate General for Science, Research 1. and Development (DG XII) and the Joint research Centre (JRC) during the most recent legislative period had already been employed in the service of other institutions under different sets of staff rules, including those for MEPs assistants. The Commission is able to state, more particularly, that it is aware that former MEPís assistants (seven in the case of DG XII and one in that of the JRC) were recruited during the most recent legislative period as officials, contract staff members or auxiliary staff members by means of the administrative procedures providing for this (competitions, selections, tests), and in line with the rules in force 2. and 3. MEPís asistants recruited by DG XII or by the JRC over the last five years. No administrative or legal proceedings are in progress or have been brought against former