ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Prevention of bacteriological terrorism: checks on staff and security in the buildings and public facilities of the European Union

The dreadful and now very real threat of bacteriological terrorist attacks by networks of Islamic fundamentalists operating in Europe means it is absolutely essential and urgent to adopt strict control and prevention measures.

National and international institutions, not least the European Parliament, which has apparently been a target of Islamic terrorists for some time, and public buildings such as airports, railway stations, cities, towns, hospitals, schools, universities and so on must be seen as particularly at risk of chemical or bacteriological terrorist attack.

These facilities, often employ staff recruited through employment agencies of nationalities and/or religions that have links with the cultural environment in which Islamic terrorism recruits or infiltrates its supporters, as has been demonstrated by the investigations into the latest acts of terrorism.

In the light of the above considerations, can the Council say what urgent control and prevention measures it intends to require of the governments of the European Union more specifically to prevent terrorists who have infiltrated such structures and are employed on the staff of the internal services from perpetrating or inciting terrorist acts, in particular bacteriological attacks?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for each Institution to arrange for a security system providing acceptable and dependable conditions of occupation for persons required to frequent, on a regular or occasional basis, the premises which that Institution occupies.

In addition, it would emphasise that following the dramatic events of 11 September, an Extraordinary European Council met on 21 September. In its conclusions, it adopted a plan of action against terrorism and called for all existing international conventions on the fight against terrorism (UN, OECD, etc.) to be implemented as quickly as possible. The European Union supported the Indian proposal for framing within the United Nations a general convention against international terrorism.

Lastly, in two instances in the same conclusions, the European Council stressed that it categorically rejects any equation of groups of fanatical terrorists with the Arab and Muslim world. (See sections 1 and 3 of the said conclusions).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3356/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Aid to Greece from the European Refugee Fund

The European Refugee Fund was established by Council Decision 2000/596/EC(1) of 28 September 2000, with funding of EUR 216 million. Under the provisions of the

decision, each Member State is entitled to receive EUR 500 000 for 2000 and EUR 400 000 for 2001, while for the following three years they will each receive EUR 600 000 in total. The remainder of the available resources will be distributed, according to the co-financing principle, between the Member States in proportion to the number of refugees who have entered the EU and are in need of international protection. The Member States submit requests for co-financing to the Commission by 1 October each year.

1. Has Greece received the amounts of EUR 500 000 and 400 000 for the years 2000 and 2001 respectively and, if so, does the Commission know which projects have been implemented?

2. Has Greece submitted requests for co-financing from the European Refugee Fund for the years 2000 and 2001? If so, how much do the relevant appropriations amount to?

3. Have other Member States received appropriations from the European Refugee Fund and, if so, what are the relevant amounts?

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

Article 10 of Council Decision 2000/596/EC, of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund (ERF), lays down the system for distributing available resources between the Member States.

Member States receive each year in addition to a fixed amount specified in Article 10(1) for the years 2000-2004 an additional amount (Article 10(2)) which is distributed in proportion to the number of applications for some form of international protection registered by each Member State and the number of refugees granted refugee status or temporary protection in the reference period.

The ERF amounts allocated to Greece, according to Article 10, were 652 057,17 for 2000 and 629 043,03 for 2001. On the basis of these amounts Greece submitted co-financing requests for 2000 and 2001 for a total cost of 869 409,56 and 838 727,04 respectively.

European Refugee Fund implemention is decentralised and Member States assure action management. Through the reports mentioned in Article 20 (1) and (2) of the ERF Decision, the Commission is regularly informed on implementation of the action in progress. A monitoring visit was also carried out in Greece in September 2001 including visits to projects that had been selected under the 2000 and 2001 ERF programmes.

All other Member States, except for Denmark, received ERF appropriations for the same period. The relevant amounts were the following:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Campione d'Italia's tax status

Following the searches last week by the Italian police of the houses of two managers of the Nada Management Organisation (formerly known as Al Taqwa Management) in the tiny Italian enclave of Campione d'Italia and the subsequent questioning of the two individuals by Swiss authorities in Lugano, could the Commission indicate whether tiny Italian enclave of Campione d'Italia is subject to the entire acquis communautaire as applied to the rest of the Italian Republic or, instead, enjoys any derogations or other special privileges?

In particular, will the proposed money-laundering directives as well as other similar measures designed to fight organised crime and terrorism apply in full to this territory, and does the Commission believe reports that it has already become a centre for such illicit activities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Italian municipality of Campione d'Italia is part of the Community, but is not part of the Community territory for customs, VAT or excise duty purposes.

The Community single market legislation, including the anti-money laundering Directive, Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(1), as recently amended, is fully applicable in Campione d'Italia. Third pillar measures to combat organised crime and terrorism also apply to this enclave.

The Commission has no specific information on the level of illicit activities in Campione d'Italia.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3424/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Funding from the Commission

In May 1998, the European Commission carried out an inquiry into the Migration News Sheet.

Can the Commission provide information on the steps which it has taken after having presented its mission report to the Migration Policy Group, the publisher of this publication, and after that organisation had submitted its comments thereon to the Commission (almost three years ago)?

On 7 March 2001, (in accordance with the terms of the contract concerning a subsidy for 2000), the Migration Policy Group submitted to the Commission a financial report, an activity report and a request for the transfer of the remainder of the agreed subsidy (VS/2000/0275) for the publication of the Migration News Sheet in the year 2000. What reasons does the Commission have for not responding to that request?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2002)

In principle, the audit carried out by the Commission covered the subsidies granted to the Migration Policy Group (MPG) in 1996 and 1997. In view of the irregularities discovered, the department responsible for the audit decided to extend it to cover the 1994 and 1995 files.

In its conclusions, and in order to be able to determine the amount of unduly paid funding, the auditor asked the recipient to prepare new financial statements based on actual costs (not including reserves), to provide more detailed explanations concerning the invoices from the Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME), whose 1995 and 1996 accounts were not clearly separated from those of the MPG, and to submit supporting documents relating to travel expenses.

As the new statements and supporting documents received were not totally satisfactory, additional information was requested. Discussions between the Commission and MPG representative took place in 1999 and continued in 2000.

Payment of the subsidy for the 2000 Migration News Sheet was suspended pending the repayment which had to be requested on the basis of the audit. The resulting debit notes and payment are currently being processed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3657/01

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Council

(15 January 2002)

Subject: State support for ship-building

The specialised press has reported that the German Government is willing to subsidise sea transport and the ship-building industry, and has submitted a proposal to this effect to Parliament.

In view of the distortion of competition this may cause and the fact that it is an example of a Member State directly or indirectly protecting the ship-building and maritime transport sectors, can the Council supply information about the context of these practices and assess the consequences for the industries of other Member States?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The Honourable Member will certainly understand that it is not for the Council to comment on allegations in the press concerning the intention of a Government to support sea transport and the shipbuilding industry.

In any case, the Honourable Member will not be unaware that any national measures likely to cause distortion of competition are systematically analysed by the Commission's specialised departments and that it therefore falls to that Institution to assess the situation and take the necessary steps, where appropriate, to deal with any unfair practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Salmonella infection in spite of veterinary certificate

In mid-November 2001, 22 tonnes of pork loin from Spain arrived at a cold store in Skåne. All the certificates as to the meat's salmonella-free status were in order.

However, it turned out that the meat was not salmonella-free. Checks carried out from time to time by the Swedish National Food Administration have always shown some consignments of meat delivered to Sweden to be infected with salmonella in spite of veterinary certificates to the contrary.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that those who issue incorrect veterinary certificates have their licences withdrawn and that action is taken to remedy this problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

In response to the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission would refer to its answer to his written question E-3304/01(1) which broadly covers the same subject.

In addition, it should be pointed out that under the rules on salmonella applying to consignments of fresh pigmeat intended for Sweden(2), certification is issued to the effect that no salmonella was found when the consignment concerned was analysed in accordance with an established sampling and analysis protocol. This protocol offers a degree of reliability regarded as similar to that under legal provisions at national level. The detection of salmonella when products reach their destination therefore does not necessarily mean that they have been incorrectly certified.

As regards the measures to be taken against anyone issuing incorrect veterinary certificates, certain requirements are laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products(3). These measures are the responsibility of the Member States. As part of its brief, the Food and Veterinary Office regularly looks at checks on certificates issued by the competent authorities.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 250.

(2) Council Decision 95/409/EC of 22 June 1995 (OJ L 243, 11.10.1995), as amended by Council Decision 98/227/EC (OJ L 87, 21.3.1998).

(3) OJ L 13, 16.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3124/01

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Transposition of the evacuation directive 89/618/Euratom

1. Council Directive 89/618/Euratom(1) of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency has apparently not yet been transposed into national law in Denmark, Germany, Greece, France or Austria. Is this true, and is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take, especially in present circumstances?

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3124/01 and E-3145/01given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

In its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission's task is, notably, to ensure that Member States have, as required, adopted national transposing measures in accordance with Community law.

Against this background, the Commission has checked the conformity of the national measures adopted by the Member States and sent to it for the purposes of transposing Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 7 December 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

This check showed that Germany and France had only partially transposed the Directive and the Commission therefore immediately inititated infringement procedures against them. As the complaints about non-conformity continued, the Commission recently decided to start proceedings against these two Member States before the Court of Justice.

Recently, Germany and France adopted additional national provisions to transpose the Directive into their respective national legislation. In the case of Germany, the objections raised could be withdrawn in the light of the text submitted and the Commission therefore decided not to continue with the Court proceedings. As regards France, the two decrees published this year do not fully resolve the problem of the non-conformity of French law in respect of Directive 89/618/Euratom. Action before the Court of Justice is therefore still pending in the latter case, and the Commission's Legal Service is presently working on the case.

Regarding the implementation of Directive 89/618/Euratom by the French authorities in the case of the nuclear power plant at Cattenom, the Commission is not aware that there are any problems between the French and German authorities as regards the cooperation between the two countries which is essential in order to apply the Directive to the people concerned in Germany.

However, going beyond the specific case of Cattenom, the Commission wishes to point out that this matter is one of the complaints made in the proceedings initiated against France concerning Directive 89/618/Euratom, since this Member State has so far not shown that it has any legal instruments to apply the Directive to the populations concerned in neighbouring Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2925/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Border checks and terrorism

Will the Commission allow countries to re-introduce border checks if they see the need to do so in order to catch terrorists?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Article 2(2) of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement provides that where public policy or national security so require, border checks on persons may be carried out at internal borders.

Given the present state of the law, it is not for the Commission to authorise or prohibit the reintroduction of checks at internal borders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Enlargement DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Enlargement Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

None of the regions mentioned by the Honourable Member received funding under the Ecos-Ouverture Programme 1998, although applications were submitted as follows:

- Val d'Aoste one application;

- Liguria two applications;

- Lombardia two applications.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/01

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: State support for ship-building

The specialised press has reported that the German Government is willing to subsidise sea transport and the ship-building industry, and has submitted a proposal to this effect to Parliament.

In view of the distortion of competition this may cause and the fact that it is an example of a Member State directly or indirectly protecting the ship-building and maritime transport sectors, can the Commission supply information about the context of these practices and assess the consequences for the industries of other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the proposal by the German Government to grant aid to sea transport and the shipbuilding industry to which the Honourable Member refers.

In any case, Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty obliges Member States to inform the Commission, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid.

If, in accordance with this obligation, Germany notifies the Commission of a plan to grant aid to these sectors, this will be examined in the light of the Guidelines on State aid to maritime transport(1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 on aid to shipbuilding(2).

(1) OJ C 205, 5.7.1997.

(2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3538/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Complementarity between EU and Member States' development policies

It would appear that a meeting called by the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Development, at which the Directorate-General for External Relations, the Cooperation Office and their counterparts in the Member States were present, was held on 1 June 2001 to discuss complementarity and related issues.

Will the Commission say what decisions were taken during that meeting?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

In the interests of coordination and building mutual trust between it and the Member States, the Commission organises meetings of the directors general for development to bring together directors general from the Member States and the DGs for Development, External Relations and the EuropeAid Cooperation Office.

The meetings are strictly informal there is no agenda and no decisions are taken. They provide a forum for the exchange of information.

The main topics covered in the last two meetings (September 2001 and January 2002) were the situation in Afghanistan, the Monterrey Conference on development financing and the Maastricht Treaty principles of coordination, complementarity and coherence, with particular regard to the Country Strategy Paper (CSP), the new programming instrument which is prepared with the participation of Member States, thereby ensuring that complementarity and coordination are significantly enhanced.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from External Relations DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the External Relations Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

No financing was allocated in 2000 or 2001 from the funds administered by the External Relations Directorate-General for projects submitted by the Italian regions mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Taxation of used cars purchased within the Community

With reference to question P-0964/01(1) and Commissioner Bolkestein's answer, it should be noted that there has been no reaction from the relevant authorities in the Italian Ministries of Finance and Transport, even though several reports on the subject have appeared in the Italian media, for example in Il Sole 24 Ore.

The Ministry of the Economy has still not made a clear and definite statement on the subject. A huge number of second-hand cars are therefore still being imported without the appropriate VAT being paid.

Is the Commission aware of these facts, and if so, does it intend to take any action?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 164.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

In the reply to written question P-0964/01(1) from the Honourable Member, the Commission outlined the VAT arrangements applicable to used cars. As these arrangements have been transposed into national law since 1995, the Commission does not find it unusual that there was limited reaction to its reply.

The control of Value Added Tax is a matter for Member States. Nevertheless, the Commission was conscious of the particular problems created in the control of transactions relating to used cars. In this context, a seminar was held under the Fiscalis programme(2) in 1999 for the purpose of examining these problems in detail. One of the conclusions from that seminar was that VAT control officials had experienced difficulty in establishing whether intra-Community supplies of used cars were made using the margin scheme or the normal VAT arrangements.

It was for this reason that the Commission, when making its proposal on simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax(3), proposed that one of the obligatory details to be mentioned on an invoice would be a reference to Article 26a of the Sixth VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(4) in cases where the margin scheme was applied. This proposal was retained by the Council, and it will therefore be obligatory from 1 January 2004 for taxable persons, where the margin scheme is applied, to make reference to Article 26a, to the corresponding national provisions, or to any other indication that the margin scheme has been applied.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.

(2) Decision No 888/98/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 30 March 1998 establishing a programme of Community action to ameliorate the indirect taxation systems of the internal market (Fiscalis programme). OJ L 126, 28.4.1998.

(3) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.

(4) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 19 January 2001 (OJ L 22, 24.1.2001).