Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

C 135/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.5.

1999

Has the Commission any plans for a programme to meet the needs arising from the treatment and the
effects of Parkinson’s disease?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission has supported activities on neurodegenerative disorders and informal carers since 1995.
However, so far no project presented on Parkinson’s disease has met the criteria required for financial
support. The European Parkinson’s Disease Association has received financial support from the
programme on integration of disabled people into the labour market, in order to analyse the needs of
people and their families living with this disease and to find the appropriate response.

The new ‘paving’ communication on the development of public health policy (1) proposes a move away
from the disease-specific approach towards a more horizontal approach to public health. However, Article
152 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states clearly that the way the Member States organise and deliver their
health care systems is the responsibility of the Member States.

Research into Parkinson’s disease has always had a place in the Community¢s biomedical research
programmes (Biomed). It received funding under Biomed 1 and there are now four Biomed 2 projects
specifically on the subject. These range from the genetic and molecular approach to treatment by cellular
grafting or functional neurosurgery. Some of these projects have already yielded significant results. The
disease is also covered partially or indirectly by many other projects.

It should be given at least as much priority under topic 1 of the future fifth framework programme, and is
in fact one of the few diseases expressly mentioned in the programme, in the key action on ‘ageing’. It also
ties in perfectly with at least two general actions: chronic and degenerative diseases, and neurosciences.

(1) COM(98) 230 final.

(1999/C 135/072) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/98


by Johann Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project

1. What is the situation regarding the ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project, i.e. the waterway leading from the
port of Trieste which is intended to link the Adriatic with other States bordering the Mediterranean and
with the Suez region?

2. How important does the Commission consider this project to be?

3. What is the current state of negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

1. The ‘Adriatic corridor’ project represents an alternative route to link the central regions of the Union
and Italy to Greece and the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, avoiding the inland route through
former Yugoslavia. It integrates rail and road infrastructure, ports, links to ports and combined transport
along the Adriatic-Ionian coasts in Italy and Greece. In the framework of the TEN-T co-financing (Council
Regulation 2236/95 (1)) the Commission has allocated financial support to two feasibility studies
concerning the ‘Adriatic-Ionian Corridor’, one in Greece (financial support of ECU 0,34 million in
1996) and one in Italy (financial support of ECU 1 million in 1995). According to information provided by
the authorities neither study has yet been completed.
14.5.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 135/63

2. Previous studies show that there are good opportunities for the development of combined transport
and short sea shipping on the corridor. It is therefore expected that this important corridor will be able to
contribute substantially to improving the access of peripheral regions of the Community and of
Mediterranean countries to the central regions of the Community in a framework of sustainable mobility
of persons and goods. The Commission is therefore convinced of its usefulness.

3. The Adriatic and Ionian seas were also recognised as an important transport element by the Third
pan-European transport conference held in Helsinki in June 1997, where the Adriatic/Ionian PETrA (Pan-
European transport area) was defined. It is intended that, for the PETrA, the countries concerned should
work on the establishment of an infrastructure development plan for the area and for its links with the pan-
European corridors and the Trans-European transport network. With the encouragement of the Com-
mission, Italy and Greece have jointly undertaken some preparatory work and plan to call a general
meeting of all interested parties, including the Commission, in the near future.

(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.

(1999/C 135/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/98


by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe

The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes on
improving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Can the Commission estimate (in percentage and/or real terms) the extent to which nuclear safety has
improved in the recipient countries, following the deployment of the various types of EU aid, since the
programmes were initiated?

(1999/C 135/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/98


by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe

As long ago as November 1996, in the study ‘Nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety in the East’
(PE 166.083/fin.), the European Parliament’s STOA unit documented serious shortcomings in the
administration of EU financial aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in connection with
the PHARE and TACIS programmes. At around the same time the Commission commissioned a similar
study, the purpose of which was to evaluate the safety improvements which had actually been achieved in
the nuclear sector in the recipient countries. However, the European Parliament has not been given access
to date either to that study or to its results. Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggest
that little or nothing has changed with regard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmes
previously identified in the STOA study.

1. Does the Commission consider that the procedural rules governing the aid programmes make it
possible to react quickly enough to sudden problems, or are there possibilities for improvement in this
respect and, if so, what are they?

2. Is it correct that the Commission is having serious problems in coordinating aid to the Central and
Eastern European nuclear sector, as intended by the G24 States, partly because of a lack of adequate
communication not only between its own departments but also with other organisations involved, and
does it consider the staff available to it in this area to be adequate in terms of numbers and qualifications?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the effects of the problem of liability on improvements in nuclear
security in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what effect are liability issues having on the
success of the EU funds deployed to this end?

Centres d'intérêt liés