ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3674/02

by Paolo Pastorelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: The Foal Levy

The approach of the season for the birth of thoroughbred foals, starting in January 2003, once again raises the recurring problem of the Foal Levy imposed by the Irish authorities on all European horse-breeders who want their brood-mares to give birth in Ireland. Since the revenue from the levy is used to fund measures for the benefit of local breeders at the expense of those from other Union countries, does the Commission not consider that this practice, including the exemption for Irish and British breeders, constitutes a clear and unequivocal infringement of Articles 88 and 89 of the Treaty, by allowing unfair competition and measures aimed at circumventing the rules of a free market? Can it also provide relevant documentation to show why such a blatant legislative abuse is allowed and, if so, say what steps it intends to take to put an end to this practice, which discriminates against breeders residing in other Union countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is already investigating the issue raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission has contacted the Irish authorities on the question in order to get their position on the matter and to collect all relevant information about the Foal Levy. The information provided by the Irish authorities is currently being evaluated on the basis of Articles 87-89 and of article 95 of the EC Treaty, in order to identify more clearly whether further action is needed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Zambia

With reference to Zambia, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Information campaign on EU enlargement

On 29 May 2002, when a survey of people's knowledge of, and interest in, the enlargement of the European Union was being presented, the Commission revealed that almost none of the EUR 150 million budget earmarked for an extensive information campaign on enlargement had been spent, even though a similar survey conducted earlier had shown average knowledge of, and interest in, enlargement not to be high enough.

Can the Commission say why it has waited so long before launching an information campaign on enlargement, when it knew that the average EU citizen was poorly informed and showed little interest in this issue?

How and when will it launch an information campaign?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Honourable Member is correct in noting the problem of public knowledge of the citizens of the member states about the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. The survey on 29 May 2002 to which he refers noted above all a lack of knowledge of the candidate countries themselves, although there was interest in learning more about the future member states.

As was pointed out in the document presented by the Commission to the European Council in Seville, the major role in informing citizens in the Union must be played by the candidate and member state governments themselves. Therefore alongside the ongoing co-operation with the offices of the European Parliament in Member States, the Commission is putting a priority on co-operation with the governments concerned.

The Commission launched its communication strategy on enlargement in May 2000, allocating EUR 150 million for the strategy across the current and future Member States, for the period until 2006. While the priority in 2001 in terms of informing the Union citizens was the transition to the single currency, a wide range of information activities related to enlargement nevertheless took place in member states during this period. Details can be found in the report Explaining Enlargement, submitted to the Inter-Institutional Group on Information in March 2002, in line with the commitment made by the Commissioner in charge of enlargement to the Parliament in November 2001. This document and further information on the implementation of the communication strategy can be found on the web site of the Commission at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/index.htm.

The impression given to the Honourable Member that no funds have been committed in support of the communication strategy is incorrect.

In fact, as of June 2002, EUR 59,9 million have been committed for the implementation of the communication strategy from the budgets 2000, 2001 and 2002, as follows:

- from the PHARE budget line, B7-030A, EUR 29,4 million;

- from the Prince budget line, B3-0306/306A, EUR 28,1 million;

- from the budget line B7-410A (Turkey), EUR 1,6 million;

- from the budget lines B7-0040/1 (Cyprus and Malta), EUR 0,8 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3171/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: VAT exemption for private management companies in Germany

Private management companies have been established in the military sector in the Federal Republic of Germany to provide services for the German Army. The Army provides manpower for GEBE (Development, Procurement and Operations Company) and other companies involved in fleet management, clothing management and land valuation. The companies pay the wages of such personnel who may be employed, for example, as drivers in a fleet management company. Such private companies are exempted from VAT in respect of the wages component of the services that they provide. Without such exemption, the German Army would have to pay VAT in respect of the driving services and wages invoiced by the private companies. The Sixth VAT Directive established a uniform basis of assessment in the EU and largely harmonised the scope of VAT. Pursuant to that Directive, the Member States may not, of their own account, create new exemption categories. Since the operations of the management companies acting for the German Army do not involve the manufacture of or trade in armaments, they cannot be excluded from the scope of the EC Treaty.

Is such VAT exemption compatible with the Sixth VAT Directive?

If not, what will the Commission do to put an end to this breach of European Union law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

According to the question, private management companies, working with manpower provided by the German Army, are not charging VAT on the labour costs component of their services to the Army. The services in question do not involve the manufacture of or trade in armaments. The Honourable Member wonders whether it contravenes the 6th VAT Directive(1) not to charge VAT on labour costs as the German Army should normally pay VAT on services and salaries for which it is invoiced by private companies.

The question would appear to relate to operations other than intra-Community imports and acquisitions on which the armed forces may claim exemption under Articles 14(1)(g) and 28c(B)(b) of the 6th VAT Directive.

Under Article 11 of the 6th VAT Directive, taxable companies are required to charge VAT on everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained in respect of the taxable transactions which they carry out. As labour costs are included in the price invoiced, VAT must be charged on that component too.

The Commission intends to contact the German authorities about this matter.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-over taxes common system of value added tax OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Samoa

With regard to Samoa, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Sierra Leona

With reference to Sierra Leona, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3721/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Trinidad and Tobago

With reference to Trinidad and Tobago, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Senegal

With regard to Senegal, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: South Africa

With reference to South Africa, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3642/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Detention of Mr Apostolos Mangouras

Mr Apostolos Mangouras, the captain of the tanker the Prestige, has been held in custody in a Spanish prison for the past ten days. According to press reports, he has not been officially charged other than being accused of not following orders, though there has been no clarification of what those orders were or who gave them.

Moreover, the Spanish authorities are not allowing Mr Mangouras to receive a visit from representatives of the Bahamas (the flag country) who are there to take his testimony.

Will the Commission make representations to the Spanish Government to allow the captain of the Prestige to enjoy the democratic rights of which he is at present deprived?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The detention of Mr Apostolos Mangouras by the Spanish authorities must be considered as a question regarding the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. Pursuant to Article 33 of the Treaty on the European Union, it is the Member States, which are responsible for what action should be taken to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security. The Commission has therefore no competence to intervene in individual cases that are dealt with by the competent authorities of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2954/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Commission accounts with commercial banks

From a reading of the answer to my Written Question E-1851/02(1), I gather that the Commission holds accounts with at least one commercial bank in each Member State in order to make payments to recipients holding bank accounts in the respective Member State.

According to the Commission, such banks are selected on the basis of an open call for tenders, and the proposed contract is submitted to the Advisory Committee on Procurements and Contracts, even in instances where this is not strictly necessary because of the threshold value (as a result of low charges). From the summary provided by the Commission, it would appear that most of the contracts were concluded in 1998.

1. Can the Commission indicate for what duration the contracts were concluded?

2. Can it indicate the banks in respect of which existing contracts were extended or renewed?

3. Can it indicate, with respect to each country, how many banks submitted tenders in connection with the award procedures?

4. Can it indicate why contracts were concluded with several banks in Belgium, Italy and Sweden instead of with just one bank?

(1) See page 24.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

1. The contracts were concluded for a period of one year renewable automatically up to five years, unless notice to terminate is given.

2. No contracts were renewed or extended beyond five years. As the end of the period of five years approaches, or, before, if a contract is terminated by notice, a new call for tenders is issued.

Sometimes the bank whose contract has expired is successful in the new call for tenders and is awarded the new contract.

Thus, among the banks referred to in part 3 of written question E-1851/02 by the Honourable Member, the following had also been awarded the previous contract:

>TABLE>

The bank names given above are the current ones following various mergers. They are not necessarily those given in the contracts.

Similarly, since the reply to written question E-1851/02, the contracts with Nordea Bank Danmark A/S and Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel referred to in part 3 of that question have expired and new contracts awarded, following calls for tender. The new contracts were awarded to the same banks, Nordea Bank Danmark A/S and Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel.

3. The table below supplies the required information:

>TABLE>

4. Before 1999, separate calls for tender were issued for contracts in ecus and in national currencies. In some countries, the same bank was awarded both contracts; in other countries one bank was awarded the ecu contract and another bank awarded the national currency contract. This was the case for Italy and Sweden.

In Belgium, contracts were awarded to more than one bank because of the large number of payments, both by transfer and in cash for mission advances, made in that country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3508/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Fiat employees not given the guarantees enjoyed by Opel employees

Fiat is likely to be taken over by General Motors and will thereby be merged with Opel.

Unlike the threat facing Fiat employees, a recent agreement drawn up between the German trade unions and Opel protects German workers from the consequences of the current crisis in the automobile industry, since it guarantees their jobs in the years to come.

Does the Commission know about this agreement?

Does it not consider that Fiat employees run the risk of being treated less favourably by the General Motors group in the event of the Fiat group being sold?

Furthermore, does it not consider that possible massive job losses in the automobile sector in Italy would result in the loss of valuable technical and manufacturing abilities such as those for which Fiat employees and managers are admired all over the world?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the agreements drawn up within the General Motors group regarding Opel, and in particular of those concluded with the group's European Works Council. These agreements, which are intended both to ensure job security within the group and to preserve its competitiveness, are an excellent example of best practice in managing restructuring and anticipating change.

The Commission also hopes that such practices serve as inspiration for the social partners when they deal with the subject of restructuring, having been consulted by the Commission in January 2002.

The Commission further expects that, if Fiat is taken over by General Motors, this best practice will continue to be developed for the benefit of all members of the group in order to preserve as far as possible the Fiat group's valuable human capital and to deal with the social impact of any necessary restructuring.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2201/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Failure to implement Directive 89/48/EEC in practice

Greek engineering graduates who are already registered with the Technical Chambers of European Union Member States, such as Italy, Germany and others, have received recognition of their professional diplomas from the Council for the Recognition of Higher Education Diplomas under Directive 89/48/EEC(1). These engineers wish to become members of the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE), which is a precondition for pursuing their profession in Greece and being insured by the appropriate insurance body. This is, however, not possible, since Greek law 1486/84 requires academic equivalence as well as professional equivalence for registration with the TEE. Thus, in spite of the fact that two years have passed since the publication of Presidential Decree 165/2000, transposing Directive 89/48/EEC into Greek law, these engineers are unable to pursue their profession. Will the Commission take steps to ensure that the above directive is correctly implemented and that Greek legislation complies with it?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The question asked by the Honourable Member gives rise to the following comments:

- the Commission is aware that the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) refuses to register engineers who have obtained their professional qualifications in another Member State on the basis of the professional recognition granted in application of Presidential Decree 165/2000, and makes registration conditional upon academic recognition of their diplomas. This requirement does not comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration(1), and is one of the objections raised as part of the infringement procedure initiated against Greece on account of its incorrect transposition and wrong application of Directive 89/48/EEC;

- for more detailed information on the infringement procedure under way, which led to Greece being sent a reasoned opinion on 1 July 2002, the Honourable Member may wish to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-1691/02 by Mr Papayannakis(2).

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 210.