ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3519/00

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE), Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE), Charles Pasqua (UEN), Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE), Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE-DE), Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), Mary Banotti (PPE-DE), Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) and Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: The current system of car taxation and its inconsistency with the internal market and free trade

Will the Council please consider, as a matter of urgency, the correction of distortions in car taxation? In several Member States, the tax system treats the importation of cars unfairly, especially when the importer is a private citizen. The taxes levied on imported cars are frequently not based on the real value of the car, particularly if the car is a used car. The excessively high taxes act as a barrier to intra-EU trade and prevent the establishment of competitive markets in the European Union. Article 25 of the Treaty establishing the European Community forbids customs duties on imports and exports between Member States as well as charges having equivalent effect.

What does the Council intend to do in order to correct the distortions caused by arbitrary car import rules in the Member States? What will the Council do to ensure transparent car imports which are in conformity with Community law?

When will European consumers be able to enjoy the benefits of a genuine internal market when buying a car?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

1. The Council would stress to the Honourable Members that the determination of the taxation system applicable when a car is purchased by a private individual must be viewed in the light of very differing situations (acquisition within the Community or importation) and of the taxes in question. In this respect, it would point out that, as Community law currently stands, with the exception of the situation regarding VAT, there is no common system of vehicle taxes, in particular as regards registration taxes or road taxes.

2. The Council is aware of the problems, in particular regarding double taxation, which may arise from a lack of coordination of Member States legislation. It would remind the Honourable Members that, under Article 93 TEC, the Council is indeed empowered to act with regard to the harmonisation of indirect taxation,

to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market, but that, to do so, it must receive a proposal from the Commission. To date, it has received no such proposal.

3. However, in its work programme for 2001, the Commission has announced that it intends to submit this year a communication on the taxation of vehicles in the European Union. The Council would call on the Honourable Members at this juncture to address their question directly to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3127/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: US funding of European federalism

There have been newspaper articles stating that leading figures in the cause of European integration were funded in their activities through the American Committee for a United Europe, a front for United States intelligence services.

Such confirm the reports that during the 1975 EEC Referendum in the United Kingdom, disaffected CIA operatives alerted the leadership of the No campaign that their colleagues were actively involved in the other camp.

Given that the European Parliament has voiced its concern over Echelon, what is the Council's opinion on this?

Does the Council have on file pertinent documents relating to this matter? What is their classification?

Has this matter ever been raised in working committee? When?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. The Council has not been informed of the allegations to which the Honourable Member refers. There are therefore no plans for a working party to look into the questions.

2. The Council position on Echelon was clearly set out in the JHA Council conclusions of 29 May 2000, following an exchange of views on debates in the European Parliament on telecommunications interception outside any legal framework. The Council reaffirmed its attachment to respect for the fundamental principles relating to the protection of human rights and personal freedoms, both for natural and legal persons, as recognised by the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4163/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006

In his reply to my Question E-3283/00(1), the Commissioner for regional policy, Mr Barnier, states that the Commission's second report on economic and social cohesion is scheduled for adoption in January 2001. It assesses not only the situation and trends in respect of the Fifteen, and Community policies' contribution to cohesion, but also the situation of cohesion in an enlarged Europe.

Mr Barnier adds that this report will be the starting point for the revision of the current EU structural policy. Using it as a basis, guidelines and possible alternatives for structural policy will be put forward, to be supplemented at a later date on the basis of the conclusions of the debates to be held with the players involved and the other EU Institutions. The Cohesion Forum which the Commission will organise in the first half of 2001 will be the first step in this direction.

Can the Commission tell me what the guidelines for the alternatives contained in the report are with regard to future Objective 1 region structural aid from 2006 within an enlarged Union?

Where will the Cohesion 2001 Forum be held?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The second report on economic and social cohesion was adopted by the Commission on 31 January 2001(1) and immediately submitted to Parliament in plenary session in Brussels.

The Cohesion Forum will be held in Brussels on 21/22 May 2001 in the Parliament buildings. Parliament will of course be invited to take part in it.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3573/00

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Cultural Olympiad

In conjunction with the extremely important winter and summer Olympic Games, from 2000 to 2004 Greece is promoting the institution of the Cultural Olympiad. Can the Commission say what its position is with regard to this institution, whether it intends to fund it and whether a suitable legal basis exists? If so, what appropriations does it propose to allocate?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

The Commission welcomes the idea of a programme of European cultural events to accompany the 2004 Olympic Games. However, the Commission has so far neither been informed of any specific programme nor received any application for financial support and cannot therefore, at this stage, voice any opinion on the subject of the Cultural Olympiad.

The Commission would, however, like the Honourable Member to be aware that it is able to offer support for cultural initiatives within the framework of, and subject to the criteria of, the Culture 2000 programme, which is the Community's single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation, and which is based on Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4051/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Inclusion of Naousa in the URBAN initiative

The aim of the URBAN initiative is the economic and social regeneration of cities and neighbourhoods in crisis with a population of between 20 and 50 000 inhabitants. Naousa is a town whose inhabitants have been hit by poverty and unemployment since the 1990s, with long-term unemployment standing at 40 %. This situation has come about through the closure or below-capacity working of the town's large textile plants, with firms in the fruit and vegetable picking and packaging business experiencing the same difficulties, particularly following the crisis in Yugoslavia.

Given the above situation in Naousa, will the Commission say:

1. whether the town can be included in the URBAN initiative, and

2. whether the regional programme for western Macedonia under the 3rd Community Support Framework includes funding for measures for Naousa and, if so, what sum has been allocated? What was the total amount of funding for measures for Naousa from the regional programme for western Macedonia under the 2nd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In Annex II to its communication laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development (URBAN II)(1), the Commission fixed the indicative number of urban areas to be covered in each Member State. Following a ministerial request, it increased the number for Greece from two to three.

To date, the Commission has officially received no URBAN II programmes from Greece.

The operational programme (OP) for central Macedonia during the period 2000-2006 includes substantial finance for major assistance in the field of urban development. The share of appropriations which the town of Naousa could enjoy is a matter for the Greek authorities.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, under the OP for central Macedonia, a total of 58 million was allocated to part-finance projects and measures to develop the prefecture of Imathia, which includes Naousa; these will have a positive effect on the town.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/00

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Metropolitan city of Padua and Venice

Given that:

- on 30 September 2000 the communes of Venice and Padua signed a memorandum of understanding, the first stage in the process of creating the first metropolitan city;

- this ambitious project aims to establish coordination and cooperation in all the main sectors, with a view to achieving significant economies of scale and mutual economic growth.

Would the Commission state whether it foresees that this innovative system of collaboration might be of interest in the wider European context, and how?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission has noted with interest the memorandum of understanding signed on 30 September 2000 by Venice and Padua concerning the creation of a first metropolitan area.

Local and regional authorities are of course free to organise themselves as they see fit within the framework of their own legal and administrative systems. There are currently many ideas in the air about citizenship and governance, and all innovative experiments are welcome as contributing towards these discussions.

With regard to regional policy and economic and social cohesion more particularly, the Commission is well aware of the key role of towns and cities in Europe's economy. They are centres of communications, trade, creativity, innovation and cultural heritage, but they are also disproportionate in their energy consumption, waste production and sources of pollution. The Community Initiative URBAN is aimed precisely at helping to fund schemes that promote an integrated approach to urban development.

However, the memorandum to which the Honourable Member refers is part of a more complex and general process that does not fall within the competence of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3179/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Report to DG development entitled Livestock sub-sectoral strategy paper

The report entitled Livestock Sub-Sectoral Strategy Paper prepared for the Commission by consultants is enthusiastic about the intensification of livestock production systems in developing countries, although it recognises that the more intensive schemes impose constraints on animal welfare.

Does the Commission share this report's enthusiasm for the intensification of livestock production in developing countries? If so, what measures, policies and instruments does the Commission propose should be used to ensure that the intensification of livestock production in developing countries is not accompanied by the kind of animal welfare problems which have occurred in developed countries?

Will the Commission confirm that it will not encourage the use in developing countries of systems which are being phased out by law in the Community, for example, the battery cage for egg-laying hens and veal crates?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

For the reasons explained in the draft livestock sub-sectoral strategy paper, the trend to livestock intensification is already perceptible, particularly in developing countries where the growth in demand is strongest. In some regions, intensification of livestock production has translated into development of peri-urban industrial schemes (mostly in Asia and Latin America), which leads to new constraints on the environment, human health, social development and also animal welfare.

As indicated in the draft paper, the development aid of the Community aims at helping poor small scale farmers and therefore does not support financially the creation or promotion of industrial animal production in developing countries. In the livestock sub-sector, Community aid will be directed towards poor rural communities which draw an important part of their income from livestock farming.

Therefore the Commission confirms that it will not encourage in developing countries the use of systems which are being phased out by law in the Community, for example battery cages for egg-laying hens and veal crates.

Even if the Commission does not and will not contribute to livestock industrialisation, it will, together with several Member States and developing countries, the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Bank, consider animal welfare issues in the framework of the international LEAD(1) initiative. It is expected that the study to be carried out in Asia and Latin America in the coming months with the support of the Community environment budget line, as well as other works done by various organisations on the same subject, will give strategic guidance to both national and international decision-makers.

(1) Livestock, environment and development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3738/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Horse chestnut disease (Camerarua Ohridella)

1. Will the Commission please state the geographical spread of Horse chestnut disease, together with the pace of any increase in its spread?

2. Does the Commission regard it as likely that the disease will spread in northern European countries in future, and will it please indicate the likely spread if current trends continue?

3. Does the Commission believe that the spread of this disease warrants an accelerated research programme into effective eradication measures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

On the basis of information currently available to the Commission, cameraria ohridella is recorded in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Austria, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

The pace of spread during recent years seems to be fast.

1. Based on its current distribution and outbreaks occurring in recent years, it is expected to infest other countries in Southern Europe rather than in Northern Europe as cameraria ohridella is considered as a thermophilic xerophile, i.e. loving warm and dry conditions.

2. The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that a Community funded research project on the sustainable control of cameraria ohridella has started on 1 January 2001. Moreover, the Commission will remain vigilant with a view to prepare, if appropriate, Community phytosanitary measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3727/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: The lack of European Business and Innovation Centres in the South West of England

Could the Commission please explain why European Business and Innovation Centres currently exist in relatively affluent areas of the UK such as Birmingham and Cambridge, when there is no Centre at all in the South-West of England, a region that contains areas such as Cornwall which are among some of the poorest areas in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

European business and innovation centres (BICs) are private companies or not-for-profit associations set up by local or regional public-private partnerships. They are founded on the Community concept of business support services under a Community brand name but are legally and financially independent.

The decision to set up a BIC does not depend on the Commission but on the local partnerships of public and private bodies having an interest and responsibility for business development in the local and regional community. Such was the case, for example, in Cambridge.

In areas assisted by European regional policy, such as Birmingham, the launching of new BICs may in addition be supported financially by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for a strictly limited period of time. Such a project should be presented to the competent bodies at regional level.

As to the South-West of England, which is included in Objective 2 areas of the ERDF, the Commission is informed that in November 2000, the South West of England Development Agency undertook discussions with the EBN (European BIC Network) for the creation of a centre in Cornwall.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3538/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Human rights situation in Colombia and the life of Fr Brendan Forde

Bearing in mind that Commissioner Nielson's letter to me dated 18 September on the human rights situation in Fr Brendan Forde's area of La Union described the situation as calm and bearing

in mind the contradictory information contained in the report from the Inter-Congregational Commission of Justice and Peace in Bogota also sent to Mr Nielsen's office:

1. Would the Commission please seek clarification from its information sources in the region on the human rights situation?

2. Would the European Commission please establish why The Commission for Investigation, established by the Colombian Government to investigate the murder of six men in Fr Forde's peace community village of La Union on 8 July, has issued no report or statement on its findings?

3. Could the Commission reassure me and the family of Fr Forde that the Commission is doing whatever it can to influence and help end the abuses of human rights that are occurring in Colombia and Fr Forde's village?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3537/00 and E-3538/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Immediately after the massacre in La Unión took place the Union called on the Colombian Government to investigate the exact circumstances of this crime. The Colombian Government established a commission of inquiry on the massacre, consisting of officials from the Public Prosecutor's, the Attorney General's and the Ombudsman's Office. They have carried out two investigation missions, the last at the beginning of November, although they have not issued their report yet. International pressure should certainly be maintained in order to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

The Union has consistently stressed the importance of making progress on human rights issues. The most recent opportunity took place on 24 October 2000 in Bogota, when Colombia convened an international meeting on support for the peace process. The Commission's perception is that there is increasing willingness from the Colombian authorities to respond to these claims. First steps have been taken by the government (the lay-off of army officers involved in human rights violations, trial of military personnel before civilian courts). But there is obviously still a long way to go and the international community should continue its active human-rights policy.

The Commission is aware of the detainee situation of the peace community of La Unión/Urabá, where Father Forde is working. Nevertheless, the Commission is actively supporting the peace communities through specific actions carried out by the non-governmental organisations to meet their needs for humanitarian aid. It also supports these communities through active participation in the Mesa por la paz en Urabá (a platform for peace consisting of different national and international entities) which monitors the human rights situation in the area of the peace communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 November 2000)

Subject: The EU's White Paper seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000

The Commission has drawn up a first white paper on youth policy. A hearing on the subject for young people in Europe was organised in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000.

Responsibility for the event in Paris was shared between the Commission and France's Ministry of Youth and Sport. According to sources, the practical arrangements could be described as little short of chaotic. Hotel reservations went astray, and many delegations had to look for hotels for themselves late at night.

Although the official speeches constantly stressed taking account of the needs of special groups, no account whatsoever had been taken, for example, of the needs of the disabled or those with special dietary requirements.

The meeting rooms for the working groups were too small, and there were not even enough chairs for all the participants. The original intention was that the hosts should make the travelling arrangements, but those for the Finnish participants, for instance, ultimately had to be made at short notice by the Finnish organisation CIMO. As the Sunday flights were fully booked, the whole of the Finnish delegation had to leave in the middle of the working groups' reporting session on Saturday afternoon.

What will the Council do to ensure that similar organisational problems do not arise during further white paper preparations?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

With regard to the preparations for the European youth seminar in Paris from 5 to 7 October 2000, the Council would draw the Honourable member's attention to the fact that it is only responsible for the organisation of meetings held under its Rules of Procedure: Ministerial Councils (Article 2) and meetings to prepare for them (Article 19 of the Council's Rules of Procedure).

The Council invites the Honourable Member to address any questions concerning the organisation of discussions in preparation for the White Paper on youth policy to the author of the White Paper, the Commission.