ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: HELIOS programme

What progress has been made in establishing a European Union rapporteur to promote the United Nations standard rules for the equalization of opportunities for disabled people, as laid down in the budget by Parliament.

What further action is proposed in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1996)

The Commission does not have a specific remit to monitor the application by Member States of the rules on the equalisation of opportunities for disabled persons adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 1993. This task has been delegated to a special rapporteur appointed by the United Nations, who is required to report to the UN Social Development Commission.

Furthermore, the Community's budget authorities have made no particular provisions in this respect.

However, under the Helios II programme, the Commission is implementing a series of measures to help promote equal opportunities for disabled persons in the Community. These initiatives take full account of the recommendations established by the UN rules.

Finally, in accordance with the Medium-term Social Action Programme ((COM(95)134 final. )), the Commission will in 1996 propose the adoption by the Council of an appropriate instrument with a view to bringing a Community dimension to the efforts made in this field at world and national level.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0872/96 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (2 April 1996)

Subject: Removal of certain publications for sale by W.H. Smith

The retail publications distributor W.H. Smith has removed approximately 300 smaller circulation titles from its shops in the UK including the excellent forum for political debate 'TRIBUNE' newspaper. Will the Commission investigate this matter to determine if it breaches competition regulations as a matter of urgency before jobs are lost in this industry?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)

The examination of competition issues arising from the removal by a distributor of certain publications from its retail outlets is a matter which in the first instance falls for consideration by the United Kingdom competition authorities. The Office of fair trading (OFT) has been monitoring changes that have been taking place in the distribution of publications in general since the implementation of remedies to address a number of competition problems identified by the Monopolies and mergers commission in its report on newspaper distribution of December 1993.

In addition to changes in distribution, technological developments such as desk-top publishing have resulted in a multiplication of the number of titles available. Consequently, commercial decisions have to be made as to which titles should be stocked. Although some low-circulation publications may no longer be sold through the usual outlets, it is nevertheless normally possible to obtain titles on subscription direct from publishers or their distributors.

The Commission has no intention at present to investigate the distributor's retail policy. This is for two reasons - the absence of information indicating that trade between Member States has been affected and more importantly, because the OFT is actively monitoring competition in this sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Anonymous bank transactions in Germany

Council Directive 91/308/EEC ((OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77. )) of 10 June 1991, on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, states that in the Member States credit institutions shall 'require identification of their customers by means of supporting evidence'.

In Germany securities up to an amount of DM 20 000 may be bought over the counter for cash in banks, with no identification required.

Is this still possible in 1996?

If so, is it permissible under this directive?

If it is not, how long has the Commission known that the directive has been infringed?

What has the Commission done to ensure that the directive is complied with?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0660/96, E-0661/96, E-0662/96 and E-0663/96 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

Article 3(1) of Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering requires Member States to oblige their credit and financial institutions to demand identification when a customer opens an account. Article 3(2) extends the identification requirement to other non-account holding customers when the proposed business involves an amount of ECU 15 000 or more in a single or series of linked transactions. As a result the Directive does not require the identification of casual customers transacting business of less than ECU 15 000, unless there is already a suspicion of money laundering (Article 3(6)).

The above mentioned provisions of the Directive have been implemented in national law by the Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member. The threshold is fixed in France at FF 50 000, in Italy at Lit 20 million, in Belgium at ECU 10 000, and in Germany at DM 20 000. The Commission has no evidence that these thresholds are not being respected.

Full details of the Member States' implementing legislation is to be found in the Commission report on the application of the money laundering Directive ((COM(95) 54 final, 3.3.1995. )), which is under consideration by Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0690/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (12 March 1996)

Subject: Modernization of Greek prisons

Riots have broken out in nearly all the prisons in Greece for the umpteenth time. The prisoners are protesting at appalling living conditions and inadequate medical care and are calling for the modernization of prison regulations.

Many of their demands are justified. Many prisons are in need of substantial improvement in facilities and some should be relocated because they are side by side with schools.

1. Is there any possibility of Commission funding to modernize the existing prisons or for relocation (new prisons)?

2. Has Greece submitted a similar request (programme)? If so, to which Commission directorate?

3. Have funds already been allocated for this purpose in the last five years and, if so, how much?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1996)

Prison-related projects are not eligible for co-financing by the European regional development fund. No application for co-financing has been presented to the Commission by the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/96 by Pierre Bernard-Reymond (PPE) to the Commission (15 February 1996)

Subject: Situation of the OECD countries with regard to the Maastricht criteria for introducing a single currency

Where did each of the OECD member countries stand on 31 December 1995 with regard to the five criteria set by the European Union in the Maastricht Treaty for the creation of a single currency?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (29 March 1996)

In November 1995 the Commission drew up a report on convergence within the Community. Table 1 provides, as far as possible, an update of the situation in the Member States regarding the five convergence criteria. As indicated below the table, the reference values for the criteria do not apply in a mechanical fashion but are evaluated. What is more, the EC Treaty stipulates that the convergence analysis must take account of a number of additional indicators such as the ecu market, market integration, the balance of payments on the current account and other price indices (Article 109j(1)).

Table 1: Member States' performances in relation to convergence criteria

>TABLE>

Source: Commission.

For reference purposes, the same variables are included in Table 2 for the other OECD members. Comparisons are difficult because the definitions of the statistical series used differ, as does the degree of updating. This is particularly so with the public finance series. Lastly, the exchange-rate criterion is not mentioned because the OECD countries that are not members of the Community are not linked by any exchange-rate regime.

Table 2: Performances of the other OECD countries in relation to the convergence criteria

>TABLE>

Sources: IMF (International financial statistics) and OECD (Main economic indicators). (*) Public deficit of central government. (**) Debt of central government. (1) Interim consumer price indices as published on 29 February 1996; arithmetic mean of twelve monthly indices as compared with the arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly indices for the preceding period. (2) Average maturity of ten years, with the exception of Luxembourg and Greece (approximately five years). (3) Source: Commission's Annual Economic Report (COM(96) 86 final of 6 March 1996). A negative sign indicates a surplus. (4) Inflation based on quarterly data.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Rejection of student admitted to the SOCRATES-ERASMUS programme

Mr Mihail Koulas, a Greek national studying in the Department of Economics at the University of Vienna was selected as part of the SOCRATES-ERASMUS exchange programme to spend the spring term at the Athens School of Economics.

After completing the administrative procedures and receiving his instructions, he travelled to Athens but the Greek university refused to allow him to attend courses.

Will the Commission say:

1. why, when he has been selected for the exchange programme, the Greek university will not admit him?

2. how the student will be compensated for financial loss and distress arising from the inconvenience and expenditure incurred?

3. whether such incidents enhance the image of the SOCRATES-ERASMUS programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

Commission enquiries indicate that there was a misunderstanding between the University of Vienna and the Austrian authority responsible for the distribution of Erasmus student mobility grants. In fact, both universities, sending and receiving, agreed not to accept Mr Koulas's candidature for a study period abroad. However, the national authority was not informed in time and had already provided the student with the Erasmus grant.

Students participating in Erasmus are requested to stay in close contact with their professors of the sending univerities and to provide formal university papers on the inter-university agreement providing for their mobility, the study programme abroad and the recognition of this period.

For this particular case, the Commission has intervened and the student's expenses will be covered by the national authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0571/96 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Action by the European Community in preparation for the 'EXPO 2000' world exhibition in Hanover

To mark the millennium, the EXPO 2000 world exhibition will take place in the year 2000 in Hanover under the motto 'mankind - nature - technology'. It will provide the opportunity to develop and present comprehensive ideas for sustainable development. It will also give rise to considerable demand for future-oriented technologies and their implementation, not only in the Hanover region but also throughout the Union. Greater participation by the Community in the preparatory stages would be desirable.

1. What activities are planned at Community level? To what extent is the Commission involved in national and regional preparations for EXPO 2000?

2. What form might Commission involvement take? Might a small EXPO 2000 task force be established?

3. Will the Commission propose a separate budget heading to support the preparatory activities for EXPO 2000?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)

The Commission has accepted in principle a German invitation to participate in the universal exhibition which will take place in Hanover in 2000. This agreement in principle was given on the condition that, at the appropriate moment, the Council and the Parliament take decisions on the budget necessary for participation.

The Commission and the Parliament are in close contact with the organisers of Hanover 2000 to define the most appropriate form of Community participation. Further, regular meetings of the Council's group on fairs and exhibitions keep the Commission informed of the progress the Member States are making in their preparations for Hanover 2000.

A communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament is foreseen for 1996 and the Commission will examine the budgetary procedures in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/96 by James Elles (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Time-share resale scam

A constituent of mine, Mrs Sheila Younger, has fallen victim to the 'time-share resale scam'. This is where a third party approaches the owner of a time-share and offers to sell the time-share for a fee. Needless to say, the unwanted time-share does not get sold even after the special sales fee has been paid. In these instances, the citizen finds himself still burdened with an unwanted time-share and that much poorer for having paid a fee to a dishonest sales agent.

Has the Commission done any research into the operation of these types of scams and is there any way to better protect the interests of citizens who become involved with time-share schemes?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

On 26 October 1994 the Parliament and Council adopted Directive 94/47/EC on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immoveable properties on a timeshare basis ((OJ No L 280, 29.10.1994. )).

As indicated in the title, the Directive concerns only aspects relating to timeshare contracts and not aspects - such as the case referred to by the Honourable Member ('timeshare resale scam') - relating to commercial practices which may be applied not only to timeshares but to any other product or service.

However the minimal character of the Directive allows Member States to adopt or maintain provisions which are more favourable as regards the protection of purchasers in the field of timeshares.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Sri Lanka

Would the Commission report on the outcome of its talks at the EU-Asia meeting and whether the question of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka was raised?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)

The Commission has already reported to Parliament on 12 March 1996 on the outcome of the Bangkok meeting. The text of President Santer's speech will be forwarded to the Honourable Member immediately, as well as to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

While the question of human rights was indeed raised, the specific case of human rights in Sri Lanka was not mentioned given that this country did not take part in the talks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0768/96 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)

Subject: Discriminatory provision in Belgian insurance law

Article 10(5) of the Belgian law of 27 March 1995 on insurance intermediaries and insurance distribution stipulates that intermediaries must guarantee that, among the products they offer, all insurance contracts concluded with insurance companies which have not been granted official approval in Belgium meet the public interest requirement laid down in Belgian laws and regulations.

Is this provision not discriminatory, in that it covers only those contracts concluded in accordance with Community rules on the freedom to provide services, and is the reference to approval in Belgium not just discriminatory but, indeed, contrary to the 'European passport' principle established in the third Directives?

Furthermore, does not the provision constitute a clear barrier to the freedom to provide services, in that it discourages insurance intermediaries based in Belgium from offering insurance products of companies based in other countries?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

The Commission is currently examining the Belgian Act of 27 March 1995 on insurance intermediation and on the distribution of insurance.

The Commission is of the opinion that Article 10.5 of the Act is not in accordance with Community law, in particular Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty. In order to be registered and authorized to operate as an intermediary in Belgium, an insurance intermediary has to guarantee that the insurance contracts it offers, which are concluded with insurers not licensed in Belgium, comply with all Belgian legal and regulatory provisions concerning the general interest. However, an intermediary does not have to guarantee that the insurance contracts it offers, which are entered into with Belgian licensed insurers, are in accordance with the Belgian provisions referred to above. It follows that Article 10.5 discriminates against those insurance undertakings which are licensed in other Member States and are operating in Belgium by way of the provision of services or by way of establishment.

The Commission will contact the Belgian authorities to inform them of its position and to ask for their comments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/96 by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: Kaleidoscope - application of the new programme

Can the Commission say when the new Kaleidoscope programme, as adopted in accordance with the co-decision procedure, will enter into force and what the practical arrangements will be?

Can it also say how it intends to inform the cultural authorities concerned about the changes made in the management of this programme?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that the Kaleidoscope programme was formally adopted by Parliament and the Council on 29 March 1996 ((OJ C 114, 19.4.1996. )) with effect from 1 January 1996 and is already operational.

The extract from the Official Journal describing the new terms of participation in the programme, and the forms for participation with an explanatory note, are available from the Cultural Action Unit and the Commission Offices. The deadline for the submission of applications is 14 June 1996.

The above documents were sent direct to all the cultural operators who had expressed an interest in the Kaleidoscope programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Regulation (EEC) No 3463/87 laying down general rules for imports of olive oil originating in Tunisia

- Under Regulation (EEC) No 3463/87 ((OJ L 329, 20.11.1987, p. 3. )) of 17 November 1987, as subsequently amended, Tunisia enjoys a preferential customs tariff, under which the ordinary tariff is reduced by 90%, for the sale of olive oil of various qualities to the European Community Member States.

- In January 1994 the Tunisian Government proclaimed a decree authorizing some companies to export their products directly, thereby breaking the monopoly enjoyed by the ONH (Office Nationale de l'Huile).

- In reality, however, the whole of the Community quota is utilized by the ONH in Tunis, in clear contradiction with the spirit of the implementing regulation, which speaks in generic terms of 'the Tunisian exporter'.

- Tunisia is a signatory to the GATT agreements on free trade, and the EEC appears to have implemented preferential arrangements, which is contrary to those agreements.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the quota is no longer distributed solely by the ONH? Can the Tunisian Government be granted such treatment by the EEC as a pure gift, irrespective of the criteria of free trade? Can any Tunisian exporter sell olive oil under the Community quota, and can the relevant Community authority issue the necessary import licences?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1996)

Article 37 of the Association Agreement signed between the Community and Tunisia on 17 July 1995 gives state monopolies five years from the entry into force of the Agreement to end all discrimination in procurement and marketing. Article 38 of the Agreement allows state-owned enterprises a five-year period in which to abolish any measures that might disrupt trade between the parties.

In the case in point, the Community did not expressly accord the ONH (Office Nationale de l'Huile) any rights under the Agreement.

The WTO agreements do not stand in the way of the phased dismantling of monopolies.

The implementing procedures adopted by the Commission for the management of tariff quotas require importers to submit a copy of their purchase contract with the supplying exporter along with their applications for import certificates to the Member States' authorities. No exclusive or preferential arrangements have been made for the ONH.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Indirect taxation

Does the Commission have a viewpoint on the reduction of indirect taxation on alcohol and tobacco by Member States?

Would the Commission support equalization of such tariffs at the top rate within the EU as opposed to the lowest rate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)

As part of its preparation for the internal market, the Commission originally proposed fully harmonised rates of duty for alcohol and tobacco products. This approach was rejected by Council, as was a revised approach based on minimum and target rates. Ultimately, the Council adopted just minimum rates, which were set at quite low levels. It follows that, in legal terms, Member States are free to increase or reduce national rates, as long as they respect the minimum rates laid down by Council.

However, the relevant directives also require that the minimum rates be reviewed every two years, taking account of the internal market, the real value of the rates of duty and wider Treaty objectives. The first such review did not give rise to proposals, but led to a major consultation process with administrations, trade representatives and other interest groups. This process, which is nearing conclusion, seeks to analyse the various policy objectives which may be relevant for future excise policy. The Parliament itself is a participant in that process, and its input is expected shortly.

Following the consultation process, the Commission will draw up its conclusions and proposals for future excise policy, in the form of the next review of minimum rates which is scheduled for later this year.