Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

16.5.

2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 115 E/201

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Community Health Promotion Programme supports measures to promote sound models of good
practice in mental health with a view to developing coping and prevention strategies to be implemented in
the Member States. The Commission has also given support through this programme to the development
of cooperation between organisations active on the promotion of positive mental health and on the
prevention of mental disorder.

A project which has just started under the leadership of Deusto university in Bilbao develops coping and
prevention strategies in relation to depression during the whole life cycle. One aspect of this project aims
at preventing depression during the transition period from working to retirement life.

Another project that is currently carried out aims at setting up a European synopsis on compulsory
admission and involuntary treatment of psychiatric patients based on national legislation and practice.

(2002/C 115 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2963/01


by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: EU-Egypt Euro-Mediterranean Agreement

In bilateral commercial agreements at Community level, the sectors most affected by liberalisation of trade
are usually the fruit and vegetable, horticultural and preserves industries. These sectors have a significant
role both for the GVA and primary sector employment in certain Member States, particularly in numerous
Objective 1 regions. Moreover, these sectors have come under heavy pressure from third country imports,
affecting employment and development in many EU regions. The Union recently signed a Euro-
Mediterranean agreement with Egypt, with fresh customs duties productions and exemptions, which will
again affect these sectors.

I would therefore ask the Commission to supply a list of the Community customs duty concessions for the
fruit and vegetable, horticultural and preserves industries. I would also ask whether the Commission
carried out any study of the socio-economic impact of this new liberalisation? If so, what were the results?
Has the Commission, should there be loss of income as a result, have any provision for a support
mechanism or compensatory payments? How has the principle of Community preference been ensured in
these sectors, which have frequently served as makeweights in agreements concerning other products,
particularly industrial products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

The Honourable Member is advised to consult a newly produced publication covering topical issues linked
to the partnership between the Union and Egypt (1) 5 a copy of the publication is sent direct to the
Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat. Chapter II of the publication covers an overview
of the agricultural part of the agreement between the parties, as well as all the concessions granted by the
Community as well as by Egypt as regards agricultural trade. The brochure furthermore comprises
information on the development of the agricultural trade between the parties in 1998 to 2000.

An impact study on the Community-concessions to not only Egypt but to all Mediterranean countries was
carried out by the Commission in 1997 and was presented in its final form to the Council at the end of
the same year (2).
C 115 E/202 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 16.5.2002

The Association Agreements concluded between the Union and the respective partners of the Barcelona
Process 5 including Egypt 5 have to be seen in the framework of the Barcelona Declaration of
27-28 November 1995. One of the three pillars of the Barcelona Declaration is the progressive
establishment of free trade between the Community and its partners, and among themselves. As for
agriculture, the Barcelona Declaration states that trade in agriculture is to be progressively liberalised
through reciprocal preferential access among the parties, taking as a starting point traditional trade flows,
as far as the various agricultural policies allow and with due respect to the results achieved within the
general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) negotiations. The aim of the whole process is to create a
win-win situation to boost the trade between the parties and there is consequently no need to consider any
compensation for the farmers.

The Commission would finally like to assure the Honourable Member that the Community-Egypt
agreement in the agricultural sector in no way can be considered to have been concluded with the aim to
compensate results achieved in other sectors. The agricultural agreement is instead considered to be
favourable for operators both in the Community and in Egypt.

(1) 25 years and beyond, the European Union & Egypt in partnership. Delegation of the European Commission in
Egypt.
(2) COM(97) 477 final.

(2002/C 115 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/01


by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(26 October 2001)

Subject: Breaches of Community law in connection with the award of public contracts in Greece

In case C-311/95 the European Court of Justice ruled that Greece had failed to comply with Directive
92/50/EEC (1) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts for the provision
of services, since it should have adopted the requisite laws, regulations and administrative provisions and
had not done so. The Commission suggested that a financial penalty (fine) of 39 975 euros per day be
paid.

In view of the large number of public contracts which are awarded in Greece, and particularly in view of
the Olympic Games, as well as the frequent delays in the allocation and execution of public contracts,
accompanied by a loss of Community appropriations, could the Commission answer the following
questions:
1. Has Greek legislation on the award of public contracts been adjusted, and what has happened about
payment of the above fine?
2. Have the necessary measures been taken for the introduction of a joint steering committee, as
provided for by the Community support framework in Greece, in order to ensure effective compliance
with the measures specified for the completion of projects?
3. How far is Greek law consistent with Community legislation on the subject of the direct awarding of
public contracts, and how is the public interest protected and the overall transparency of procedures
ensured?
4. Has the legal framework which will govern contracts awarding infrastructure projects under the third
CSF been devised to conform to the self-financing system, and if so, is this consistent with Community
law?

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission


(19 December 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that:


1. Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (1) was transposed in Greece by Presidential Decree No 346/1998 of
12 October 1998. The Court of Justice has not imposed a fine upon Greece in relation to the
transposition procedure in question.