ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/99

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: JHA cooperation programmes: reports, evaluation and rights of the defence

Through the Community budget the European Union funds a range of programmes relating to cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs. The Grotius programme, in particular, which was established by Joint Action 96/636/JHA of 28 October 1996, provides for exchanges and incentives relating to research, seminars, conferences and training, and is aimed at legal practitioners (magistrates, lawyers, notaries, etc.).

What specific projects has the Commission financed? In addition, does the Commission have an analytical description of the projects and an evaluation of the initiatives funded and of the documents and studies produced? Finally, which projects have been financed with the aim of exploring the issue of the rights of the defence in a European area of justice in which, as is envisaged by the Council agreement on mutual assistance in judicial matters, there will be closer judicial cooperation in criminal matters?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission has run the Grotius programme since 1996 and has presented the information sought by the Honourable Member in two reports(1).

The Commission aims to support projects in avenues related to the mandate of the programme (to improve judicial cooperation and mutual knowledge of the legal systems), including projects dealing with the defendant's point of view, the victim's point of view as well as the state's view on judicial cooperation. As outlined in the reports, approximately 70 % of all the projects are organised by non-governmental authorities.

(1) First Report of the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Grotius, Sherlock, Stop and Oisin programmes (1996-1997) SEC(98) 1048 and the second report (1998) SEC(1999) 1955.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Possible lower VAT rates on labour intensive services

Would the Commission please publish, for each Member State, a list of services for which Member States have applied to levy a reduced VAT rate under the provisions of the directive on reduced rates of VAT on labour intensive services?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission has published the list requested by the Honourable Member in its proposal for a Council decision authorising Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 28(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC(1).

(1) COM(99) 705 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/99

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Imports of products under tariff heading 1604.14.00

The Thai authorities have asked to be allowed to export 8 000 tonnes of tuna fillets to the European Union through the opening up of a separate quota for the products included under tariff heading 1604.14.00. The Community tuna fillet market may, however, be considered to be adequately supplied from Community internal production and imports from the Andean Pact and ACP countries covered by the GSP. If necessary the quotas for those sources may be increased, for which reason there is no need to seek supplies from other countries. Furthermore, tariff heading 1604.14.00 includes tinned tuna, hence any opening up of the quota as requested by Thailand would seriously affect Community producers of tinned tuna and tuna fillets and also the industries of the Andean Pact and ACP countries.

In the light of above, would the Commission say what its intentions are with regard to the request submitted by Thailand?

When is the Commission going to submit the study which it promised the Council it would carry out into the actual figures for Community tuna fillet production and actual supply requirements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The request by the Thai authorities to which the Honourable Member refers was sent, according to the information received by the Commission, to a trade association representing the European fish industry. The Commission could under no circumstances take an initiative on the basis of a document which was not addressed to it.

In addition to that, the Commission, when drawing up its proposals on the opening and management of autonomous tariff quotas, only considers requests which are sent to it by the Member States.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has committed itself to carrying out a study on the supply of tuna fillets to the Community market in the short and medium term. The commitment entered into by the Commission specified that this study has to be completed before the end of 1999.

The Commission will forward the study to the Council within the deadline set.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1675/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Exotic animals

Exotic animals are subjected to indescribable suffering during transportation. Treated as goods, they are transported in appalling conditions. Many animals are dead or seriously injured by the time they reach their destination.

What measures is the Commission taking to halt practices of this kind which are cruel to animals?

What measures is the Commission taking to monitor the illegal transportation of exotic animals?

Will the Commission support a ban on imports of exotic animals into the Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1999)

The Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1) contains all the necessary provisions for trade and transport of wild animals and plant species. In particular, all imported and exported specimens of species covered by the Regulation must be transported in accordance with international norms established by the International air transport association (IATA) or Convention on trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). Mortality in transport is closely monitored in the Community and import restrictions can be put in place where necessary.

The authorities of individual Member States have the responsibility for ensuring that these requirements are complied with. However, according to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 an enforcement group has been established, consisting of responsible authorities of each Member State, to combat illegal trade.

The Commission considers that the conservation of many species is sometimes better served by permitting a well-monitored and controlled trade rather than instituting an import ban.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/99

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Ban on antifouling paints containing copper

On 31 August 1999, the Netherlands Minister for Health, Welfare and Sport (for the Pesticides Authorisation Board) issued a decree prohibiting, with effect from 1 September 1999, the use on (i.e. application to) pleasure craft in the Netherlands of antifouling paints that contain copper. However, vessels to which antifouling paints containing copper are applied in other countries are not banned in Dutch waters. Nor does the ban apply to antifouling treatments used in the Netherlands before 1 September 1999.

Does the Commission agree that the Dutch provisions may be regarded as a barrier to trade such as is prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?

Does the Netherlands government have the power to issue such a decree before the end of the implementation period of, in this case, Directive 98/8/EC(1) (the Biocides Directive)?

What are the Netherlands government's obligations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC and/or the general directive on the notification of technical measures (Directive 98/34/EC)(2) as regards the notification of this ban before it is implemented?

Has the Netherlands fulfilled any such obligations?

If so, how and to what extent?

If not, what action does the Commission plan to take?

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The Commission is unable to state its opinion on the national provisions until they have been notified to it.

If the national provisions concerned are technical rules within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down the procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, the Netherlands has not fulfilled its obligations since, as far as the Commission is aware, the provisions concerned have not been notified to it.

If the provisions are indeed technical rules which have not been notified in accordance with the procedure laid down in the above Directive, the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty, will take all necessary steps. However, a more detailed examination of the measure is necessary to enable the Commission to adopt a position on it.

Article 16 of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing on the market of biocide products provides for a transitional period of ten years. During the transitional period, the notification requirement under Directive 98/34/EC still remains (see Article 16(5)).

Until the final date for the transposition of the Biocides Directive, on 13 May 2000, the Dutch authorities do have the right to adopt such national provisions, provided that, apart from being notified as mentioned above, the provisions are compatible with Articles 28 (formerly Article 30) to 30 (formerly Article 36) of the EC Treaty. The Commission will check such compatibility on the basis of the texts submitted to it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Comitology costs

According to the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible for implementing the decisions of the Council. The Council has this process supervised by committees of national experts.

How many advisory committees, management committees and regulatory committees of national experts assist the Commission in its executive tasks?

In what areas?

What was the cost of these committees in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

What budget is provided for these committees in 2000?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The Commission is assisted in the exercise of its implementing powers by 260 committees. Of these 27 use procedures not in conformity with Council Decisions 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987(1) and 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999(2) laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (committee procedures), while 233 follow procedures in conformity with these Decisions. Of the 233, 189 use only one procedure: 24 use the advisory procedure, 56 the management procedure, and 109 the regulatory procedure.

44 committees use two or even three procedures: 21 use advisory and management procedures, five use both advisory and regulatory procedures, 12 use both management and regulatory procedures, and five may use any one of these three procedures.

The committees in question function in virtually all the areas covered by the EC Treaty, primarily the environment (over 40 committees), enterprise (over 30), transport and agriculture (nearly 30 each) and health (over 20).

The answers to the other parts of the Honourable Member's question will be sent to him at a later date.

(1) OJ L 197, 18.7.1987.

(2) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Kerosene tax in civil aviation

The 1944 Chicago Convention stipulates that kerosene used as fuel in international civil aviation may not be subject to taxation. At the same time, flights within the EU, but between different EU Member States, continue to be treated as international flights, and thus to be covered by

that exemption. The assumption is undoubtedly justified that the above convention is out of date and in need of fundamental review. A resolution (B5-0118/1999) was, moreover, recently adopted by the European Parliament calling in particular on the Commission to draw up a white paper on measures relating to civil aviation, which would include measures paving the way for taxes on kerosene fuel to be introduced.

The Commission consequently is asked: whether, pending completion of the said white paper, it will declare flights within the EU to be internal flights and on that basis immediately impose a tax on kerosene for use in civil aviation, the proceeds being used to fund environmental projects?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission recalls its position on taxation of kerosene used in international aviation as presented in the report(1) recommending that excise duties on mineral oil should be extended to aviation kerosene as soon as the international legal situation allows the Community to levy such a tax on all air carriers including those from third countries. This position has not changed.

Following the debates in Council, the Commission commissioned a study on the analysis of the taxation of aviation fuel. This work has been completed and the Commission has presented its conclusions recently in the communication on air transport and environment to the Parliament and the other institutions(2).

The Commission does not, at this stage, intend to declare all intra-Community flights as domestic (national) flights in the sense of the Chicago Convention. It will in co-ordination with ongoing preparatory work at the level of the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO), continue its work on a range of market-based options including taxation aimed at reducing the environmental impact of air transport with a view to launch an initiative in 2001.

(1) COM(96) 549 final.

(2) COM(1999) 640 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2542/99

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Driving regulations for people with diabetes mellitus

1. It has been represented to me on good medical authority that there is no evidence that drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus pose any abnormal danger to other road users. Is the Commission in possession of countervailing evidence that shows that such drivers do pose special dangers? If so, what is the evidence?

2. Under the (amended) Directive 91/439/EEC(1) insulin dependent diabetics are exposed to the risk of losing their driving licences and in certain cases their livelihoods.

3. Does the Commission agree that this amounts to unfair discrimination against the group of drivers in question?

4. Will the Commission therefore take steps to repeal the Directive?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-495/98 by Mr Howitt(1).

The Commission can confirm that since that answer was given, there have been no developments in the field to prompt it to change its position.

(1) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2844/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: EU-supported research on climate change

Has the Commission undertaken any analysis of the extent to which EU-supported research onclimate change and its future impact has given attention to the main European continental land mass relevant to the majority of EU citizens?

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-2837/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Areas of climate-related research in previous programmes no longer included

Are there areas of climate-related research which have been included in previous programmes which are no longer included, and if so which are these?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2836/99 and E-2837/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Research on climate change is a long-term approach since it involves basic understanding of the complex earth system, its evolution and change, prediction, detection and monitoring or documentation of changes. Given the non-linearity of earth system and the political significance of the issue it is desirable to continue Community support for an undetermined period of time. Priorities need to be set as is the case for the recent call.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2669/99

by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: State aid to Philipp Holzmann AG

It has been announced that the German Government is to take various measures to facilitate the restructuring of Philipp Holzmann AG, the construction group.

The Commission's recent notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees clarifies the circumstances in which State guarantees fall under the heading of State aid and how far they are compatible with Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

The provisions announced, loans amounting to DEM 150 million and guarantees of a further DEM 100 million, constitute State aid (specifically, aid for rescuing and restructuring, as defined in the Community guidelines published in OJ C 368, 23.12.1994) falling within the scope of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.

In view of the above, does the Commission not consider that these measures taken by the German Government constitute a serious distortion of competition within the Community and breach the provisions on State aid in Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty?

In the light of the statements by the Commissioner responsible for competition and the Governor of the European Central Bank on the coincidence of measures and proposals for State interference in the markets and the euro's weakness, does the Commission intend to take steps to reduce the number of possible exceptions to the prohibition on State aid contained in Article 87 of the EC Treaty? In particular, does the Commission not think it advisable to take action to modify, if not tighten up, the above-mentioned Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, which are characterised by an excessively general and broad approval system?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

Whether or not the measures of the German government constitute a serious distortion of competition has to be assessed on the basis of a detailed analysis taking into account the criteria of the Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(1). These guidelines which came into force on 9 October 1999 amended the previous guidelines from 1994 and have stricter criteria, for instance, with respect to the avoidance of undue distortions of competition and the one time, last time principle.

After a preliminary examination of the notification the Commission found that the aid raised doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. Therefore, on 18 January 2000 the Commission initiated proceedings in order to launch an in-depth investigation of the aid measures.

(1) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/99

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Abolition of European aid payments for the distribution of milk in schools

Reports are widespread of the Commission decision reducing, then abolishing, Community subsidies for the distribution of milk in schools.

According to child nutrition specialists milk is an essential food for child development. The distribution of milk in schools is, moreover, still useful today in reaching certain sectors of the population who do not enjoy a balanced diet.

This plan is disturbing in terms of both agriculture and public health.

As the Agriculture Council on 14 and 15 June 1999 took the view that milk consumption should be encouraged because of its nutritional value, in particular for children and young people, why is the Commission taking a decision that runs counter to the Council's opinion?

At a time when public health has just been given the status of a horizontal Community policy under the Treaty of Amsterdam, how can the Commission risk endangering the health of European children who benefit from this nutritional supplement in schools?

Can the Commission therefore deny the information that has been published and reassure the citizens of Europe?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Based on the theory that the Community aid scheme would be discontinued from 2000 as recommended in an evaluation report, the Commission's budget proposals for 2000 included a reduction in appropriations for Community expenditure on subsidising school milk.

In the light of the arguments put forward during the resultant detailed discussion of the scheme's future at the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 14 and 15 June 1999 (to which the Honourable Member refers), the Commission has re-examined the issue and now proposes that aid for school milk should continue but that Member States should part-finance the expenditure entailed.

This new approach is justified firstly by the need to observe the budgetary constraints governing agricultural expenditure, under which priority must be given to less expensive market support measures than the school milk scheme. Secondly, the Commission wishes to emphasise that national part-financing could improve the scheme's combined effectiveness. The Commission regards the Honourable Member's suggestion of alternative funding under health policy as an interesting idea which merits further examination, and sees national part-financing as the only viable way of taking non-agricultural objectives into account.