ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/98

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Deduction of health insurance contributions from supplementary pensions received in another Member State

The general health insurance scheme contribution rates applied by the French CRIREP (Caisse Régionale Interprofessionnelle de Retraite des Personnels - Regional Interprofessional Staff Retirement Fund) to beneficiaries resident outside France are almost four times as high as those applied to beneficiaries resident in France.

This practice represents unjustified discrimination against cross-border workers resident in another Member State.

The free movement of workers is one of the essential freedoms underlying the operation of the common market. In view of these facts:

1. Is the Commission aware of this discriminatory practice?

2. What measures does the Commission envisage taking in order to ensure that recipients of supplementary pensions living in or outside France are treated equally?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

In the matter of social security, Council Regulation (EC) 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(1) protects the social security rights - pensions in particular - of persons moving within the Community. However, Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(2) applies only to "statutory" pension schemes, i.e. those based on legislation. Supplementary schemes based on collective agreement, such as the one in question, are not covered by Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and the provisions of that Regulation cannot therefore be invoked in this particular case. It should be noted that in 1998 the Commission is due to launch a simplification and reform of the rules coordinating Member States' social security systems, in the course of which the question of extending the scope of coordination will be examined.

On 8 October 1997 the Commission, as a first step towards overcoming the obstacles to free movement linked to supplementary pensions, presented a proposal for a Directive on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the European Union(3). This proposal is at present before the Council for discussion, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee having already delivered favourable opinions.

(1) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ C 149, 5.7.1971.

(3) OJ C 5, 9.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/98

by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: The Rapid Spread of Tuberculosis

Is the Commission aware of the scale and rapid spread of tuberculosis in South-East Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and of the deaths it causes, as reported by the World Health Organization?

What steps is the Commission taking to address this emergency?

What assistance is the Commission giving to research into how tuberculosis might be contained and cured?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Commission is aware of the increase in the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) and of the factors that are associated with this phenomenon, including crumbling medical systems, deteriorating socio-economic conditions, and inappropriate practices leading to anti-microbial resistance.

Through the Community programme on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other communicable diseases the Commission is giving support to projects on surveillance and response on TB involving all Member States. These projects aim at enhancing the capacity of the Member States' authorities to fight against this disease.

Within the Community's enlargement framework, applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe have been encouraged to participate in this and other public health action programmes (open to the Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs), Malta and Cyprus). The Commission is also co-operating on this issue with the United States in the context of the Community-United States task force and with international organisations, in particular the World health organisation (WHO) and the World Bank.

Concerning research on tuberculosis, Biomed is presently funding 7 projects, amounting to a total of 3.25 MECU, related to vaccine development, the development of a new generation of drugs in order to overcome the drug resistant strains which are presently circulating, and on the epidemiology of tuberculosis.

Further opportunities for research on tuberculosis are offered in the fifth framework research programme, since there will be a key action on infectious diseases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(11 February 1998)

Subject: Tightening up the directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

There have recently been dreadful examples of violence with weapons in several Member States.

In the light of these dreadful events, does the Commission have any plans to tighten up Council Directive 91/477/EEC(1) on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1998)

Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of arms was adopted as an accompanying measure to the removal of controls at internal frontiers.

As to the facts referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not aware that they have brought to light any shortcomings in the control procedures and formalities introduced by the Directive for intra-Community movements of weapons.

It would also point out that Article 3 of the Directive allows Member States to introduce in their legislation a more stringent classification of weapons than that provided for in the Directive. Lastly, Article 2 stipulates that the Directive is without prejudice to the application of national provisions concerning the carrying of weapons.

This being so, the Commission plans to examine, in the report it will draw up on the application of the Directive, various aspects of the latter's operation and impact. The public order and public safety aspects will be covered by the report.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1223/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Charging for parking in Rome

Like most European capitals, Rome has road, traffic and parking problems. To tackle them, the Rome City Council has decided to launch a huge programme to introduce paying car parks and install new parking metres. The proliferation of such schemes to regulate parking, without planning for free car parks, risks causing serious economic hardship to traders with shops in the areas where parking metres are to be installed as well as to the citizens living and working there.

Will the Commission say:

1. What methods are used to regulate parking in other EU countries?

2. Whether it agrees that the installation of parking metres in areas not served efficiently by public transport undermines freedom of competition for traders in the area?

3. Whether there are any directives or Commission documents on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

The Commission has no legislative power or reponsibility in matters relating parking. Parking everywhere in Member States is regulated according to local requirements through a variety of instruments.

The Commission is studying the problems of urban transport, for example through financing research projects in the Transport programme of the fourth framework programme for research and development (R& D) (Decision No 1110/94/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994)(1). An example of the work underway is Capture (cars to public transport in the urban environment), a demonstration project which is jointly led by eleven European cities including Rome. The project aims to evaluate the implementation of measures which are intended to encourage a change of behaviour favouring the use of public transport. In Rome, the project directed by the University La Sapienza, concerns three types of measures: the extension of the blue zone (controlled parking zone); the introduction of priority lanes reserved for buses and trams; and the selective management of parking zones.

Moreover Member States and the Commission are examining the possibility of launching a new action "European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research" (COST) concerning urban parking policy.

Finally, the Commission developed a database which is devoted to examples of good practice in the urban transport sector and uses numerous case studies. This database, which is aimed primarily at those who are responsible for this sector in local authorities, is likely to be fully accessible by the Autumn.

(1) OJ L 126, 18.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1097/98

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Discrimination in double taxation conventions

One of the consequences of the double taxation convention between the Netherlands and Belgium of 16 August 1971 is that a Dutchman and a Belgian both living in Belgium in the same local authority and working in the Netherlands for the same Dutch firm are taxed differently. The Belgian pays tax in Belgium and the Dutchman in the Netherlands in accordance with the rules of the relevant tax systems,

Does the Commission feel that this difference infringes the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, as set out in Articles 6 and 48(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Communities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The Honourable Member states that Dutch and Belgian workers living in Belgium and working in the Netherlands are taxed differently, income tax being payable by Belgian workers in Belgium and by Dutch workers in the Netherlands.

The Commission would point out that, according to the information in its possession, the agreement existing between Belgium and the Netherlands on the taxation of workers (Article 15) makes no distinction on the basis of nationality. Under this provision, frontier workers are taxed, irrespective of their nationality, in the Member State where they are resident, while other workers are taxed in the Member State where they pursue their employment.

The Member State of taxation is different only in the case of civil servants (Article 19). According to this provision, Dutch nationals working in the Dutch civil service while residing in Belgium are taxed in the Netherlands and Belgian frontier workers in similar circumstances are taxed in Belgium (provided that they do not have dual Belgian-Dutch nationality).

The Commission considers that the distinction made in respect of civil servants does not constitute an infringement of Community law as it stands at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1690/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Information on the EU's Natura programme

The EU's Natura programme for the preservation of biodiversity in the European Union's Member States has been criticized in Finland largely on the grounds of the way in which information has been provided.

How has the Commission guaranteed the legal protection of citizens and the provision of information in connection with the preparation of the Natura programme in the Member States, and how will it monitor the implementation of these guarantees?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

It is for the Member States to propose their lists of sites for the Natura 2000 network, according to Article 4 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the so-called habitats Directive(1). This national site selection part of the establishment of the Natura 2000 network may also include public consultations and dissemination of information to citizens concerning the sites to be proposed and their natural values. Similarly it is for the Member States to provide appropriate information about the legal implications foreseen for the sites which are being proposed to the Natura 2000 network.

The Commission makes every effort to ensure that its activities concerning the establishment of the Natura 2000 network are as transparent as possible. To disseminate information about the various phases and implications of this process, a special Natura 2000 newsletter, which now has a circulation of 14 000, is produced three times a year and made available to all those who are interested. Additionally the Commission has an on-line home page on nature conservation containing further information on Natura 2000.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/98

by Carlo Ripa di Meana (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Italian State funding for a project promoted by the Vatican City State within the city of Rome but outside Italian territory

The Italian State has contributed Lit 40 billion for a civil engineering project costing Lit 80 billion, promoted by the Vatican City State within the city of Rome but outside Italian territory.

The Vatican awarded the contract for the work involved to the firms Impregilo and Dioguardi as a result of private negotiations, without using the European tendering procedure laid down in Directive 89/440/EEC(1), the alleged reason for this exception being that the Italian State would, in this case, be contributing no more than 50 % of the cost of a project carried out by third parties, in which case Directive 440/89 would not apply, as stated in Article 3 of Law No 406/91 transposing Directive 89/440/EEC.

The project is for an underground car park inside the Janiculum hill, but does not provide for access and exit ramps. The car park would thus consist of an inaccessible 5 - floor block.

A separate project for the construction of ramps providing access to the Janiculum car park is being promoted by the Italian State, at a total cost of approximately Lit 12 billion and is being subjected to approval in accordance with the normal European tendering procedures under the direction of the Lazio Regional Public Works Office, as the contracting authority.

It seems obvious that the construction of a car park and the building of entry and exit ramps constitute inseparable parts of the same project - since a car park without access would be a senseless project.

The contrived idea of splitting the work into two separate parts (a car park and access ramps) is aimed at circumventing the proper European tendering procedure laid down in Directive 440/89, since the Italian State's total contribution amounts to Lit 52 billion (40 billion + 12 billion), i.e. 56 % of the total cost of the work needed to build a car park complete with means of access.

Can the Commission prevail upon the Italian State to reestablish the correct conditions as regards competition, if necessary by bringing in the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

Article 2 of Directive 89/440/EEC, which has now been replaced by Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts,(2) does not apply to the works project referred to by the Honourable Member since the Vatican is an independent and sovereign third country and, as such, is not subject to the Community directives when awarding contracts, irrespective of whether a financial contribution is made by the Italian State and regardless of the amount of that contribution. The determining factor in this case is the fact that the contracting authority is not subject to Community law.

(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1362/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Trading standards

Does the Commission organize regular meetings or seminars between trading standards officers from different Member States?

Does the Commission recognize that such meetings can be very useful in facilitating the exchange of important information among practitioners?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 1998)

Efficient market surveillance is essential for ensuring that only products in compliance with Community legislation are placed on the market. The Commission welcomes the Honourable Member's interest, and agrees on the importance of information exchange between trading standards officers (market surveillance authorities) from different Member States.

Numerous actions have been taken to improve administrative cooperation between national surveillance authorities in sectors that are important for the safety of European citizens.

Administrative cooperation between national surveillance authorities takes place under the "new approach" directives which lay down the necessary requirements to protect the interests of citizens and society concerning low voltage equipment(1), toys(2), electromagnetic compatibility(3), medical devices(4) and recreational craft(5).

Exchange of information also takes place in the committee set up under Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety(6) which ensures that consumer products placed on the market are safe. Furthermore, the Commission distributes information on dangerous products to the Member States through the rapid exchange of information system. The Commission also supports informal co-operation between enforcement officers. The Commission working document on enforcement of European consumer legislation(7) contains several suggestions aiming to improve the enforcement of European consumer law, e.g. exchange of best practices and high level meetings.

The Commission organises regular meetings of the national food control authorities which allow a thorough exchange of information on food control, including the preparation of the yearly co-ordinated control programme for foodstuffs and on the rapid alert system for food. Moreover, administrative assistance, through a single liaison body designated in each Member State, reinforces the exchange of information between Member States.

The Commission and the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products in London organize regular meetings with representatives from the Member States' authorities for inspection and control of medicinal products.

In addition to the sectoral initiatives outlined above, the Commission would draw attention to the possibilities offered by the Karolus exchange programme, which enables market surveillance officials and others involved in the enforcement of single market rules to spend a period working with their counterparts in another Member State.

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(2) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(3) OJ L 139, 23.5.1989.

(4) OJ L 189, 20.7.1990, OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.

(5) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994.

(6) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(7) SEC(98) 527 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1666/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Sanctions against Iraq

In response to my oral question H-317/98(1), the Commission stated, as I was already aware, that food and medicines have never been subject to sanctions.

Can the Commission therefore confirm that it believes that sanctions do not have any effect on the availability of food and medicines in Iraq?

Does the Commission accept that there is a contradiction between its positions that sanctions are an effective tool to cripple Iraq economically and that these sanctions do not have a detrimental effect on the supply of medicines and food to the poorest people in Iraq?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 1998)

While the United Nations (UN) security council resolution No 661 (1990) permits the sale or supply of supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs, it does not mean that the supply of these goods is without international control. Resolution No 661 created a committee to ensure the effective implementation of the resolution and called upon all states to co-operate fully with the committee in the fulfilment of its task.

The means of procurement of foodstuffs and medicines by the government of Iraq has been limited through the imposition of sanctions. With the implementation of resolution 986 (1995), the oil for food deal, the international community provided Iraq with substantial means of procurement. However, only in the first quarter of 1997 did goods purchased under the oil for food deal begin to arrive in the country. Consequently, medicines have been in short supply.

Iraq has always been a net importer of foodstuffs and domestic production is estimated to be stable at the pre-1990 level of one third of requirements. The amount of approximately USD 1 800 million a year allocated under the first two phases of the oil for food deal is close to the pre-1990 food import levels of between USD 2 000-3 0000 million. Although it has been reported that sanctions are having an effect upon domestic production, free food distribution in the three northern governorates is acting as a disincentive to local cereal producers and problems are emerging in animal husbandry such as screw worm which is developing in the South of Iraq due to the collapse of the veterinary sector. Strategic food stocks are considered by some to be insufficient to deal with irregularities in supply.

The Commission is aware that economic sanctions as well as the policies of the government of Iraq have had a detrimental effect on the supply of medicines and food to the poorest people in Iraq. Since 1990, it has therefore provided approximately 230 MECU for humanitarian aid actions to alleviate the suffering of the most vulnerable of the Iraqi people.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (April 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0587/98

by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 1998)

Subject: Possession of firearms by private individuals

Directive 91/477/EEC(1) provides for the Commission to report, five years from the date for the transposition of the directive, on the situation resulting from its application and where appropriate to propose amendments. The report should have been submitted by 1 January 1998.

When will the Commission be submitting this report to the European Parliament? In view of the frequent incidents in the Member States, will the Commission propose amendments to tighten up the directive?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The Commission report on Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons will be finalised as soon as possible, once the recent transposal measures adopted by the three new Member States have been taken into account.

The second part of the question is the subject of Question E-201/98 by Mr Hager(2). The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to that question.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.

(2) See page 6.