You are on page 1of 2

C 318 E/238 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.11.


The recent decision of the Greek Council of State mentioned by the Honourable Member does not concern
the area to be affected by the planned project of the Olympic canoeing and rowing center.

As regards the Table Tennis Stadium in the Veikou Park, on 15 February 2001, the Commission requested
the Greek Authorities to provide information. Greece has not yet replied.

With reference to the Olympic village near the National Park of Parnitha, the Commission has decided to
close a formal complaint lodged in 2000 related to the modification of the town planning map, as there is
no Community competence in this matter.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 318 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Cost of the Dehaene Group in 1999

In October 1999, the three wise men  Dehaene, Simon and von Weizsäcker  submitted a report to the
Commission on the institutional implications of enlargement ahead of the intergovernmental conference.

In September 1999, the three wise man had been asked by the President of the Commission completely
independently to identify institutional problems and to set out arguments as to why those issues should be
dealt with by the intergovernmental conference.

Did the Commission bear the costs of the three wise men’s work and how much were those costs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2595/99 by
Mr Hannan (1)

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/261) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1375/01

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Age discrimination in the field of research and development

One of the main themes from the Stockholm Council was the challenge posed by an ageing population.
It was stated that there is a need to work to increase the rate of employment especially among older

In addition, section 2.2 on Human Resources and mobility of the Sixth multiannual framework
programme 2002-2006 recognises the need of ‘making the most of the potential offered by all sectors of
the population’ within the field of science and technology.

In the light of these aims, can the Commission ensure that there will be no upper age limits for training
programmes in the Sixth framework programme, as there were with the Fifth framework programme?
13.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 318 E/239

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission does not foresee any upper age limits for the Human resources and mobility activity of
the multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 for research, technological development and demon-
stration activities. Applications from researchers to the actions within the activity will be considered on the
basis of the relative qualifications and experience of candidates at various stages of their careers. In some
instances, the training elements envisaged will necessarily be directed at researchers at the early stages of
their research careers, for example in the case of certain global support measures such as research training
networks, although this will not preclude participation by older researchers who have started their research
careers later in life or have experienced a break in their careers. Other actions, such as support for research
teams of the highest level of excellence or scientific prizes for research work carried out, will generally
involve more established researchers at later stages of their careers.

(2001/C 318 E/262) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1385/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Unanswered questions

One of the stated aims of the present Commission is to increase transparency and openness. A second has
been to improve relations with the European Parliament through increasing its performance in its dealings
with Parliamentary Questions (PQs).

In the light of this, will the Commission confirm that it is due to release the answers to the following
questions which have now been awaiting response for a considerable period of time:

 E-0488/01,

 E-0490/01,

 E-0313/01,

 E-0491/01?

Will it also make a statement on its plan for improving turn-around times for PQs?

What is its present:

(a) average response time;

(b) target response time?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2001)

First of all, the Commission would reiterate the importance it attaches to Members of Parliament fully
exercising their right, enshrined in Article 197(3) of the EC Treaty, to turn to the Commission directly for
information, thereby sustaining the political scrutiny which Parliament exercises over the Commission.

The Commission aims to answer the questions put to it by MEPs within the deadlines set by Parliament.
It regrets not having been able to meet these deadlines in the individual cases mentioned by the
Honourable Member. However, it can assure him that, in the meantime, it has answered the questions