Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

22. 1.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 21/135

(98/C 21/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/97


by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission
(11 June 1997)

Subject: Aid for the shipping sector

The Commission has adopted new guidelines authorizing state aids in the shipping sector.

Does the Commission intend to grant aid from European funds to counteract the decline in the European fleet?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission


(11 July 1997)

On 6 May 1997, the Commission adopted revised guidelines for state aid in the maritime transport sector. The
revised guidelines were envisaged in the Commission communication ‘Towards a new maritime strategy’ (1)
which recommended such a review in order to help maintain and develop the Community's shipping sector.

The guidelines seek to regulate the manner in which aid is granted by the Member States. However, apart from a
number of initiatives in the area of training (e.g. Leonardo) it is not foreseen that Community funding will be
used to aid the maritime transport sector.

(1) COM(96) 81 final.

(98/C 21/254) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2026/97


by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(5 June 1997)

Subject: Psychiatric care in Greece

Further to the Commission’s answer to my Written Question P-1038/97 (1):


1. The effect of suspending funding for the social exclusion programmes for people with mental health
problems until the study for the completion of the psychiatric care reform is approved is that various centres
are being dismantled, staff are unsettled and specialists are leaving. What measures will the Commission
take to ensure that funding continues in this interim phase until the programmes covered by the new study
are finalized and approved?
2. The measures implemented under Regulation 815/84 (2) fell within the terms of reference of the Ministry of
Health, whereas the measures relating to the social exclusion of people with mental health problems are now
a matter for the Ministry of Labour, the adverse consequences of which are well-known. What steps will the
Commission take to ensure that the measures which are a continuation of Regulation 815/84 are the
responsibility of the Ministry of Health?
3. Apart from ministry officials, do those taking part in the study of the psychiatric reforms include the people
who are directly responsible for and familiar with the situation of psychiatric hospitals and, in particular, the
biggest of these, the Attica Psychiatric Hospital?
4. Has provision been made for staff of the Attica Psychiatric Hospital to form part of the committee managing
the programmes to combat the social exclusion of people with mental health problems?
5. What stage has been reached in the Greek study of the reform of psychiatric care? When is it expected to be
approved and implemented?

(1) OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 219.


(2) OJ L 88, 31.3.1984, p. 1.
C 21/136 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 1. 98

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission


(8 July 1997)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that there has been no disruption of payments for
actions concerning people with mental health problems under the operational programme ‘Combating exclusion
from the labour market’.

The Greek ministry for health and welfare remains the responsible authority for action related to the
socio-economic exclusion of mentally ill people. As mentioned in the Commission’s reply to the Honourable
Member’s question P-1038/97, the Greek authorities, at the Commission’s request, submitted an action plan
comprising the action required to continue and consolidate psychiatric reform. There has been an initial
Commission reaction to this plan which will be revised further by the Greek authorities during the next few
months. In the context of this plan, some actions were identified for implementation during 1997.

The Commission is not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member as to whether representatives from
psychiatric hospitals participated in the drafting of the plan of action in question. This matter falls within the
competence of the Greek authorities.

The ministerial decisions adopted in July 1996 on the accreditation of implementing agencies and the
management of actions under the specific operational programme, do not provide for a management committee
for social exclusion programmes concerning people with mental health problems such as that cited by the
Honourable Member.

(98/C 21/255) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/97


by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(13 June 1997)

Subject: CERA annual report on ‘Extremism in Europe’

The annual report of the European Centre for Research and Action on Racism and Anti-Semitism (CERA),
entitled ‘Extremism in Europe’, was presented to the press at the EP Press Centre in Strasbourg on 14 May 1997.

Astonishment and indignation are the only possible reactions to the section of the report devoted to the Italian
political party, Alleanza Nazionale, which is branded by the CERA, with no real supporting evidence, as an
organization with an ideology characterized by immobilism, many of whose activities reflect a tradition of
xenophobia, and which has a tendency towards anti-democratic and extremist behaviour. As is illustrated by the
data set out in the CERA report itself, Alleanza Nazionale is a party which, in addition to being well represented
in the European Parliament, gained 15.7% of the overall vote in the recent elections in Italy, and in some
constituencies, over 30%. This attempt to present Alleanza Nazionale to world public opinion as just another
right-wing extremist group is therefore totally unacceptable, as well as being totally unfounded. The CERA
report would appear to reflect a basic prejudice against the right wing and, despite the fact that it should be based
on hard facts alone, it contains unacceptable elements of political bias.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:


1. the CERA report was commissioned or supported in any way (including financially) by one of the
Community institutions?
2. if it was, it is to be considered an official document of the Community institutions?
3. there are any rules preventing the Community institutions from providing support of any kind for
politically-biased initiatives?
4. it intends to give its views on the matter?