ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Replacement rates

What are the typical replacement rates (benefit payments on unemployment as a percentage of earnings) for each of the Member States and, for comparison, the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The definition and management of social benefit schemes including their relative level of assistance, the replacement rates fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States.

Policy issues related to tax and benefit systems, and their impact on the labour market, have been given an increasing weight in the employment guidelines(1) and the broad economic policy guidelines in recent years.

Some analysis and data on replacement rates for the Community, the United States and Japan have been published in The EU Economy 1999 Review, Part II, Chapter 2(2), and further analysis based on data from the European Community household panel (ECHP) will be published in the forthcoming Social Protection in Europe report 1999. These documents deal with some of the conceptual issues involved in defining and measuring replacement rates and provide some examples of the results obtained.

(1) OJ C 69, 12.3.1999.

(2) European Economy series No 69.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Tax wedge in each Member State

Please indicate the tax wedge at 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, 125 per cent, 150 per cent, 200 per cent, 250 per cent, 300 per cent, 350 per cent, 400 per cent and 500 per cent of median employees' earnings in each Member State, state the level of median employees' earnings and specify the components of the tax wedge in each case between the cost to the employer and the net amount received by the employee.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission neither computes nor possesses data concerning tax wedges in each Member State in the detailed form requested.

However, the Commission has calculated ex ante tax wedges and their detailed breakdown for some ad hoc representative case studies of employees. A first approximation to the concept and calculations of the tax wedge can be found in part III, Section 1, of the 1995 Employment in Europe report(1), with a calculation of average and marginal tax rates, and in the annual publication Net earnings of employees in manufacturing industry in the EU(2). More recently, further analysis of the tax wedge on labour and its components is presented in Study No 2, Section 2 of The EU Economy Review 1999(3).

In addition, in order to provide a unified framework to compare the heterogeneous taxation systems of different Member States and to measure the taxation of labour, the Commission calculates implicit tax rates. These rates are calculated by dividing the taxes on a specific activity or good by an appropriate corresponding tax base, from a macroeconomic point of view.

The implicit tax rates are computed for consumption, labour and other factors of production. The implicit tax rate on labour is defined as the total amount of taxes on employed labour divided by the compensation of employees. The denominator compensation of employees consists of gross wages and thus also the amounts paid as social insurance contributions and as wage taxes.

A table illustrating the implicit tax rates on labour for the Member States from 1980 to 1997 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission regularly produces the publication Structures of the taxation systems in the European Union(4). This is a collection of annotated data on the evolution of the structure of the taxation system in the Community.

(1) COM(95) 396 final.

(2) http://www.cc.cec/eurostat/eudor-stat/mst3/en/11225/00000001.htm.

(3) European Economy series No 69.

(4) http://www.cc.cec/eurostat/eudor-stat/mst2/en/24248/00000001.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/99

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Drinks packaging

The consumption of drinks packaging in the EU is very high and is damaging the environment. Has the Commission done anything to promote reusable drinks packaging, for instance? If so, how much money has it made available? How does it view the prospects for introducing an EU-wide system of standard returnable packaging that can be reused anywhere in the EU? Has it any idea of how much drinks packaging is consumed in the EU every day?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2000)

The encouragement of reuse systems of packaging in the Member States is one of the measures foreseen by Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) in order to prevent or reduce the environmental impact of packaging waste provided that the packaging can be reused in an environmentally sound manner in conformity with the EC Treaty. However, no specific financial instrument has been foreseen for this purpose at Community level.

The setting up of a European system for reuse is a rather complex issue where several aspects (standardisation, transport distances) play a role. This makes it difficult to harmonise the existing reuse systems, which have historically developed along different lines. Moreover, the need to ensure a high level of environmental protection has to be combined with internal market rules.

As a first step in view of the promotion of reuse systems, the Commission launched a study aimed at describing the present situation and the constraints which hamper the further development of reuse systems. The study was completed recently and is available on the web site: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/report4.htm. The contents of this study express the opinion of its authors.

The Commission will take advantage of the revision process of Directive 94/62/EC, which should start before the end of 1999, to improve the reuse systems of packaging in the Member States.

According to the most recent data, the total quantity of packaging waste in the Community is about 61 million tonnes per year, of which 14 million tonnes for liquid beverage containers (11 million tonnes glass, 1 million tonnes plastics, 1 million tonnes metals and 1 million tonnes beverage composites).

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Health problems arising from the operation of an olive kernel oil plant in Iraklion (Crete)

In Iraklion in Crete, a particularly pollutant olive kernel processing plant is producing an extremely unpleasant odour, affecting the local residents and the city hospital, the colleges of technology and many schools and day nurseries. Despite complaints by the local and prefectural authorities and the unfavourable findings of the Technical Infrastructures and Environment Committee, the Ministry for the Environment, Town Planning and Public Works is continuing to renew the plant's operating licence.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have environmental impact studies, together with the necessary technical studies, concerning the plant as a whole been carried out?

2. Have all appropriate calculations been made and has an evaluation been carried out of measures recommended in the past?

3. Will the Commission take measures to have the plant definitively closed down in accordance with a request to the Ministry for the Environment, Town Planning and Public Works from the Crete regional Secretary-General and other bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission does not know if an environmental impact assessment has been carried out for the plant in question.

The national authorities are responsible for checking whether the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1), have been met.

The Commission does not have any information on the pollution caused by this plant or the approval of an environmental impact assessment. The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to send it a dossier describing the plant's polluting activities, so that it can contact the Greek authorities and investigate the matter.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2747/99

by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system

Many travellers seem to be suffering at the moment from the effects of gaps in the regulations in force concerning the denied-boarding compensation system in air transport (Council Regulation No 295/91(1)). For instance, it seems that little compensation has actually been paid in cases of denied boarding, and that the information has not been properly conveyed in agencies or airports. In addition, the exclusion of charter flights and ticket-less (voucher) flights from the regulation's scope denies compensation to many travellers who have suffered from overbooking.

A new proposal designed to make good these deficiencies was submitted to the Council in July 1998. Could the Council say why it has not yet taken a decision on the text, which is very important for all travellers, and say when it expects to do so?

(1) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

Reply

(16 March 2000)

The Council is aware of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers. In general, it feels that that situation is often caused by the lack of proper information and that passengers ought to be made more aware of the rights they already have under Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport.

In order to make good certain deficiencies in the present rules, and in particular to cover the situation of charter flights and ticketless flights, the Council is examining a Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. That proposal for a Regulation also includes provisions requiring more extensive information for passengers, both in travel agencies and at airports, regarding passengers' rights to compensation.

The Council's proceedings on this matter are progressing but the question of the application of the Regulation to the airport of Gibraltar has still to be settled. It is not possible at this stage to indicate dates as requested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Climate changes and variations on the mainland of the European continent

What priority if any will be given under research task 2.1.4. Climate variability and abrupt climate change to understanding climate changes interacting with variations on the mainland (including mountains and lakes) of the European continent?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2843/99 and E-2844/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The area Climate variability and abrupt climate changes does include understanding of climate changes and its impacts on European land masses both in the past and the future. For instance, the hydrological cycle and its interactions and impacts with the geosphere-biosphere are important research tasks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/99

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU sponsorship for digitalising mediaeval manuscripts and incunabula

The University of Granada (Spain) has just published a CD ROM of the interactive multimedia digitalised version of the priceless Codex Granatensis, written by a Belgian monk in the 13th century and beautifully copied and illustrated by a German master c. 1425.

The beauties of this fragile volume, hitherto known only to a tiny number of specialists, are now accessible to anyone willing to part with 1 500 pesetas.

In view of the success of this experiment, would the Commission be prepared to sponsor a programme for making the treasures contained in mediaeval codices and incunabula available to the public in interactive multimedia form?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Honourable Member requested information about whether the Commission would be prepared to sponsor a programme for making mediaeval codices and incunabula available to the public in interactive multimedia form.

The Commission can only sponsor cultural initiatives as part of and in accordance with the criteria of its existing programmes. In this context, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a call for proposals relating to the Culture 2000 first framework programme will be launched at the beginning of this year. Once it has been officially adopted, it will be published in the Official Journal and on the Internet. The Commission remains at the Honourable Member's disposal, should he require further information. An explanatory document on the Culture 2000 framework programme has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

In addition to the Culture 2000 programme, access to Europe's cultural heritage in multimedia form is also included in the IST (Information Society Technologies) programme of the European Union's Fifth RTD Framework Programme. In the Key Action Multimedia Content and Tools, the work programme for 2000 provides for support for research projects aiming to improve access to scientific and cultural collections. Detailed information on the IST programme and the relevant calls for proposals can be found on the Cordis website (www.cordis.lu/ist/).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/99

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Human rights violations in Iran

Is the Commission aware of the plight, and in particular the whereabouts, of the students Mehdi Rohani, Halakin, Jazdi, Faghihian, Gholami and Borumand, who were arrested in the town of Isfahan on 28 August 1999, or the names and situation of the four students who, according to a statement made on 12 September 1999 by the presiding judge of the Tehran Revolutionary Tribunal, Mr Rahbarpour, were sentenced to death. Is it prepared to take up these cases and make representations to the Iranian Government, drawing attention to the plight of the detainees, in particular to those sentenced to death?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2713/99, E-2714/99 and E-2715/99 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission follows with concern the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights are always raised by the Union. This was most recently the case of the meeting of the Troika with the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister in Helsinki on 1 December 1999.

The Commission is also involved in the demarches made by the Union to Iran in this respect. A number of demarches were made concerning the 13 Iranian Jews by the Union Troika as well as by individual Member States in the autumn of 1999. A Union Troika demarche regarding the reported death sentences on four students took place on 3 October 1999.

The possibilities for the Union to influence the situation in Iran are relatively limited due to the absence of any contractual relationship and the modest level of bilateral exchange. Nevertheless, the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, as it seeks to improve its ties with the Union and other partners. To be effective, however, such pressure which should be measured, in order not to create an impression of foreign interference.

In the case of the 13 Iranian Jews, Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a fair and just trial. It has even been suggested that they may be released in the national interest . Iranian authorities are undoubtedly also aware of the strong negative international reaction that would follow any executions of student leaders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/99

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Production of counterfeit goods in CEECs

According to reports by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, Central and Eastern Europe have become a thriving market for counterfeit goods, as Asia has been for some time, and such goods are reaching the EU's internal market via those regions. Counterfeit goods production is also a major obstacle to increases in EU investment in Eastern Europe, as businesses see that they will not enjoy the requisite legal protection in the countries concerned.

How will the Commission step up its efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit goods in Eastern Europe? What will the Commission do to improve cooperation with the authorities of Eastern European countries in this regard?Is there any way in which the Commission can include measures against counterfeit goods in the pre-accession partnership programmes?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission refers to its reply given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3958/98(1) which indicated that the Commission is closely monitoring the evolution of intellectual property protection in Central and Eastern Europe.

In this context, the Commission considers that in the large majority of the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) substantive progress in the harmonisation of the legislation with the acquis has been achieved. However, certain shortcomings in the establishment of an adequate legal framework still exist. In addition, the administrative capacity relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights still needs significant improvement and better administrative co-operation between the authorities is also needed.

Most of the CEEC countries are heading in the right direction and, on the whole, levels of piracy are decreasing, even though they remain high.

Bulgaria can be mentioned as a country which has achieved significant results in the fight against piracy during 1999.

The Commission will continue to give high priority to the fight against piracy in the framework of the enlargement negotiations.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 151.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1516/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Noise pollution from Malpensa 2000 airport

1. Can the Commission say whether or not the dispute between it and the Italian authorities responsible for running Malpensa airport also relates to the issue of noise pollution caused by arriving or departing aircraft which overfly residential areas at low altitude?

2. If it does, has the Commission any information which would enable it to assess the extent to which the quality of life is diminished in the residential areas concerned?

3. If so, have any proposals been draw up with a view to alleviating the problem and to ensuring that the people affected enjoy an acceptable quality of life during the day and, more particularly, during the night?

4. With regard to the question of transferring the remaining flights from Linate airport, should the probable increase in noise pollution stemming from the possible increase in the number of flights not also be taken into account?

5. Under European environmental law, has the EU any powers and responsibilities relating to noise pollution?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1999)

The litigation before the Court of justice was introduced by the Italian authorities against the Commission's decision of 16 September 1998 disapproving Italian decree of 5 July 1996 and 13 October 1997 requiring transfer of all traffic from Linate to Malpensa on 28 October 1998 with the exception of the Milan-Rome route. Such decision was found to be contrary to Community law for violation of the principle of non discrimination and the principle of proportionality. The Italian authorities replaced the litigious decree by a new decree allowing 34 % of European flights to remain at Linate for a temporary period until access infrastructures are improved.

When adopting such measures, Member States must respect all elements of Community law including Community rules adopted in the environmental sector. In the area of aircraft noise, the Community has adopted a number of directives, the latest being Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes convered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988)(1) which provides that Member States must no longer accept so-called chapter 2 aircraft after 1 April 2002. Existing Community legislation allows Member States to adopt specific operating rules for environmental purposes at Community airports. The Commission is not aware of Italian authorities having adopted such legislation for the Milan airport system.

The Commission is, however, analysing the appropriateness of a Community framework for operating rules at airports targeting the environmental impact. It will present the outcome of this assessment in due course.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2616/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Agri-environment expenditure

What percentage of common agricultural policy expenditure is devoted to agri-environment schemes (intended to ensure that agricultural activities are compatible with the maintenance of landscapes, species and habitats) in each of the 15 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

One of the key objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) lies in safeguarding and improving the environment. While this role had already been created prior to the 1999 reform, it has become even more crucial under Agenda 2000. By way of example, the measures aimed at supporting farmers in less-favoured areas, and the provisions allowing direct aid to be granted to farmers subject to certain environmental constraints, play an important role where the environment is concerned. However, the budgetary cost of such measures is not entered as environmental expenditure since the environment is but one of the targets of measures of this type. As regards exclusively environmental measures provided for by specific legislation and financed solely by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), expenditure for the 1999 financial year totalled 1 951 million. This represents 4,93 % of the total expenditure of 39 524 million for the financial year, i.e. an increase of more than one quarter on the average for 1996-1999. In view of the foregoing, however, it would be wrong to conclude that this percentage of CAP expenditure alone contributes towards safeguarding and improving the environment.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that EAGGF funding for agri-environment measures is matched by Member State co-funding on a one-for-one basis in non-Objective 1 areas and at a rate of 75 % Community funding and 25 % Member State funding in Objective 1 areas. Total expenditure on agri-environment schemes is, therefore, higher than the EAGGF expenditure indicated below.

As regards the breakdown of expenditure on exclusively environmental measures in each Member State, the average for the financial years from 1996 to 1999 is as follows:

>TABLE>