C 309 E/210 (2002/C 309 E/242

)

Official Journal of the European Communities WRITTEN QUESTION E-2214/02 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 July 2002) Subject: European Capitals of Culture new selection procedure

EN

12.12.2002

According to an announcement on the new selection procedure for the European Capitals of Culture, the order in which Member States will hold the event has already been decided for the period 2005-2019 (Ireland in 2005, Greece in 2006, Luxembourg in 2007, United Kingdom in 2008, etc.). In view of the European Union’s forthcoming enlargement to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, can the Commission state why not a single applicant country was considered? Would not such a decision by the Commission have constituted a positive signal, one which would take into account the cultural contribution which may be expected from the new Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (20 September 2002) The system for designating the European Capital of Culture and the list of Member States, indicating the order in which they will hold the event, are set out in Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 (1). The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the subject of candidate country participation. In fact, in its initial proposal (2), it specifically stated that the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus, third countries which had concluded Cooperation Agreements containing a cultural clause and the countries of the European Economic Area would be allowed to participate in this initiative. It is nevertheless important to note that Article 4 of the Decision provides for participation of third countries in the initiative and sets out the procedure clearly. This Article stipulates that European nonmember countries may participate in the Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019. Any such country may nominate one city as a European Capital of Culture and should notify its nomination to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions. The Council, acting unanimously on a recommendation from the Commission, shall officially designate one of these nominated cities as a European Capital of Culture for each year.
(1) OJ L 166, 1.7.1999. (2) OJ C 362, 28.11.1997.

(2002/C 309 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/02 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission (23 July 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 1999/13/EC on solvent emissions Can the Commission indicate the current record of each Member State in implementing Directive 1999/13/EC (1) on solvent emissions? Can the Commission indicate how the website which has been set up to facilitate implementation of the Directive is to be promoted and maintained and whether it could be a useful precedent for assisting implementation of other environmental directives?
(1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (4 September 2002)

C 309 E/211

The record of Member States in transposing Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations is far from being satisfactory. In accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has initiated infringement procedures against all Member States for their failure to notify the transposing measures within the deadline laid down in the Directive. Eight infringements have been closed in the meantime, while Austria has received a reasoned opinion for having failed to transpose the Directive and cases against Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom are being brought before the Court of Justice. Moreover, the infringement procedure against Belgium is still under examination. In relation to the website which has been set up to facilitate implementation of the Directive which is accessible from the Commission’s web site, the Commission is examining options to ensure that the information on the web site remains up to date. It is too early to say whether the configuration of this particular web site will serve as a good model to assist in the implementation of other environmental directives. However, in general, internet based tools such as web sites clearly have a role to play in general in both communicating environmental legislation and in assisting in its implementation.

(2002/C 309 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission (23 July 2002)

Subject: Study grants for the children of frontier workers With regard to the award of study grants to children of frontier workers, a large number of problems have already been resolved. However, a few problems are still outstanding, and they need to be regulated more effectively. 1. Can the Commission indicate whether the Netherlands, as a Member State of the EU, may terminate the award of a Netherlands study grant to the child of a Belgian (or German) frontier worker employed in the Netherlands if the said frontier worker is obliged to terminate his/her employment on the grounds of incapacity for work or invalidity or if he/she is made redundant? 2. Can the Commission indicate whether the Netherlands, as a Member State of the EU, may withhold study grants from children who are studying in the Netherlands and are members of a family living in the Netherlands, all the members of which hold Belgian (or German) nationality and in which the father is employed as a frontier worker in Belgium (or Germany), on the grounds that the children do not hold Dutch nationality? 3. Can the Commission indicate why the entitlement of Dutch students to the award of a grant to study in neighbouring countries (except forWallonia) is restricted to higher education and is not available for senior secondary vocational education?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (16 September 2002) 1. The Honourable Member has asked whether the Commission believes it is compatible with Community law for the Netherlands to withdraw the right to a study grant for a frontier worker’s child when the parent loses his or her job on the grounds of incapacity for work or redundancy. In this instance the Commission would like to refer to the Meeussen case (C-337/97) (1), according to which the child of a frontier worker can rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2) to obtain funding for studies under the same conditions as those applied to the children of nationals of the State of employment. However, for the children of workers who have lost their jobs on the grounds of incapacity or redundancy, the Court of Justice has said that, as former frontier workers are not currently engaged in an employment

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful