ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: European film distribution aid

Rather than production aid, the European film industry needs subsidies to enable it to distribute and show its films. Whereas Hollywood movies, which are handled by six or seven majors, reach all parts of Europe at the same time, European films do not have the benefit of a unified system, even among the EU Member States.

There is no Europe-wide distributor and consequently no EU policy providing for legislative measures in support of European films. That is why, regrettably, American movies account for 82 % of the films that go on release in Europe, whereas the figure 30 years ago was 35 %, and the European films which reach the United States today account for just 1 % of film releases there.

Does the Commission therefore consider that it should propose an EU policy to promote the distribution of European films and overcome the huge inequality in relation to American movies resulting from the failure to deal properly with film distribution?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

In reply to the Honourable Member's question, the Commission would point out that, since 1991, it has been pursuing an active policy, under the MEDIA I (1991-1995) and MEDIA II (1996-2000) programmes, to support the distribution and screening of European films outside their main country of production. This support is designed to increase the circulation and profitability of European films and to support common strategies of the distributors of these films on the European market.

The evaluation of the MEDIA I programme and the interim evaluation of the MEDIA II programme showed the positive influence of the measures of the MEDIA programme, including in terms of organisation, on both the circulation of European films and the risks taken by distributors in their campaigns to promote non-national European films.

Since 1996 (when the MEDIA II programme entered into force), the number of European films distributed outside their main country of production has risen by 85 % from 246 in 1996 to 457 in 1999. Over this period, the number of people who saw these films increased by more than 20 million (20 %). It should be noted that, of the 457 films shown in 1999, 287 or 62 % had received financial support from the MEDIA II programme for their distribution. These 287 films were seen by more than 40 million people in 1999, in other words by over 90 % of the recorded number of people who saw non-national European films in 1999.

Furthermore, the Community policy of support for the film industry, the transnational distribution of films and the circulation of European works was strengthened with the adoption of the MEDIA Plus programme (2001-2005), with a budget of 350 million for measures to promote development, distribution and promotion (57,5 % of which is expected to be devoted exclusively to support for the distribution of audiovisual works), plus 50 million for vocational training.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4132/00

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Right of an Israeli national to play in German handball leagues

Does the Council share the legal opinion that Israeli nationals are to be treated in the same way as EU citizens in German handball leagues in terms of their ability to participate with the result that their players' passes do not need to be stamped with the letter A in accordance with Section 15 of the DHB's match rules?

If not, does the Council intend:

1. In the light of the recent negotiations with Israel on updating the association agreement of 20 November 1995,

2. Mindful of the fact that Israeli sporting associations have for years participated in European football and handball tournaments and similar major events and are thus a permanent feature of the European internal market in sport with the result that it would be justified and consistent to create a uniform area of service provision for sporting activities that included Israel,

to amend the above association agreement so that Israeli nationals are placed on an equal footing with EU citizens in terms of freedom of movement pursuant to Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The EU-Israel Association Agreement which entered into force on 1 June 2000, does not include provisions for the free movement of persons. Therefore, the issue raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament concerning the right of an Israeli national to play in German handball leagues falls under the national competence of each Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3230/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Possible discrimination against religious groups

Like all other Community countries, Italy has undertaken to respect freedom of worship and religion. However, new forms of discrimination have started to appear in various quarters threatening to restrict these freedoms.

In one European country with a highly-developed legal tradition, a new offence of brainwashing was recently introduced under the penal code, which also gives the government the power to decree officially which groups should be designated sects. Members of these groups have already been convicted of offences on more than one occasion. In some cases, investigations have been opened and pursued before it has even been clearly determined what crimes or offences may have been committed.

Has the Council already adopted liberal provisions to provide protection for the right to freedom of worship and religion, or will it adopt them to meet the needs of this new situation?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. The Council would point out that, in accordance with Article 5, first paragraph, of the TEC, the Community acts within the limits of the powers conferred upon it and of the objectives assigned to it by the Treaty. Moreover, the Community may only take action in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5, second paragraph, of the TEC). Moreover, the Council considers in general that questions relating to criminal law should, when raised at Union level, be dealt with under Title VI of the TEU.

2. As regards the area in question, the Council, acting in accordance with Article 13 of the TEC and within the limits of the powers which (the Treaty) confers upon the Community, may take appropriate action to combat any discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation but has not received any proposal concerning this area. On this point, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, at its meeting on 27/28 November 2000, it adopted a Directive based on the same Article concerning a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, which is intended to combat discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in particular.

3. Finally, the Council would point out that, pursuant to Declaration No 11 annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty, The European Union respects and does not prejudice the status which churches and religious associations or religious communities enjoy in Member States under national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4092/00

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

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Lack of EU funding for the solar energy programme in Andalusia (Spain)

Andalusian manufacturers and fitters of solar panels have warned that a cut in funding for their regional government's aid programme for this type of renewable-energy technology is threatening the viability of the sector. The amount of aid has been reduced from an original ESP 1,7 billion to 1,2 billion.

According to the Andalusia regional government's ministry for industry, this reduction is due to a lack of EU funding which, in the view of companies operating in the sector, will lead to a major scaling-down in growth predictions. Current demand is for over 45 000 m2 of panels, half of which will not now be manufactured.

What information can the Commission provide regarding the lack of EU funding for the implementation of a programme to fit this type of renewable-energy technology, and to what extent can this shortfall be made up, so as not to impede the major growth in this sector which is currently being witnessed in Andalusia?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The integrated operational programme for the Autonomous Community of Andalusia for the 2000-2006 programming period, which the Commission approved on 29 December 2000, provides just over 65 million (about PTE 11 billion) to promote and support renewable energy and energy saving among business and private consumers. The Community Funds are providing 59 % of this amount.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member State lays down the arrangements for the actual allocation of this amount among the various alternative sources of energy according to its own energy policy criteria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: European border regions

Is the Council aware of a proposal by the Commission for an Action Plan to help border regions cope with enlargement and has the Council considered whether this plan will require a change to the financial perspectives with a new ceiling in Category 2 so that existing poor regions will not lose assistance as a result?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Council has not received any Commission proposal along the lines referred to by the Honourable Member, and consequently has no plans to change the financial perspective to cover the actions described in the question. In this respect, the situation of existing poor regions is not in doubt.

As regards the second question, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in any case, the financial perspective already includes coverage for other actions, in particular strand A of Interreg III which aims to promote integrated regional development between border regions, including external borders and maritime borders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Tax concessions following natural disasters

In the event of a natural disaster, the aid provided both to individuals and organisations must be aimed at returning the areas hit to the situation they were in prior to the disaster. Aid to local businesses is therefore important with a view to enabling the local economy to recover.

Would the Commission ask the governments of the Member States to adopt special direct measures whenever a natural disaster occurs, such as the suspension of companies' commercial and legal payment obligations?

Would it also take action to ensure that reconstruction work is exempted from VAT or that the VAT paid thereon is fully reimbursed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2001)

The exemptions provided for in Community legislation on VAT constitute exceptions to the principle established in Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.(1) According to this the supply of all goods and services effected for consideration by a taxable person is subject to value added tax. The aim of the Community legislator in including a common list of exemptions in the Sixth Directive was both to avoid different VAT treatment of the same situations within the Community and ensure comparable collection of own resources in all the Member States.

The exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive do not cover reconstruction operations carried out following natural disasters. In addition, the existence of these exemptions has been shown to cause difficulties as regards tax neutrality and operators have frequently complained about this. The Commission does not therefore intend to broaden the scope of these exemptions in the future.

In view of the current legal framework for VAT the Commission is of the opinion that a solution to the problem raised by the Honourable Member should be sought outside the common VAT system.

Furthermore, Article 87(2)(b) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty considers aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or other exceptional occurrences to be compatible with the common market. It is therefore up to the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, to decide whether to take these measures and in what form.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: ECJ judgment in Case C-205/98 tolls levied on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway

The European Court of Justice ruled on 26 September 2000 that the Federal Republic of Austria had infringed European Treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination by reason of its introduction or structuring of tolls on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway.

The Commission is asked:

1. The decision by the European Court of Justice applies exclusively to goods transport. To what extent does this judgment also have implications for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway and for tolls levied on bus traffic?

2. Subsequent to the most recent increase in charges for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway, a price adjustment has been applied as at 1 December 2000. The effect is to raise the price of the 10-day and monthly toll discs by 16,27 %, while the annual toll disc will increase by 32,56 %. Does the European Commission consider those increases, and the discrepancies in the percentage increase, as appropriate?

3. Does the Commission consider this action as also amounting to an infringement of the ban on discrimination?

4. What action will the European Commission take where necessary to counteract infringements of the ban on discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2001)

1. The decision by the Court of Justice applies exclusively to goods transport and has no implications for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway and for tolls levied on bus traffic.

2. and 3. While value added tax on tolls has to comply with the rules of the Sixth VAT Directive of the Council 77/388/EEC such as interpreted by the Court in several recent judgements(1), there is no Community legislation aimed at harmonising tolls on buses as such. These tools therefore need only respect the basic principles of the EC Treaty, amongst which is the overall requirement of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. The information supplied by the Honourable Member does not indicate the presence of any such discrimination. In

addition, the discrepancies in the percentage increase mentioned between the 10-day and monthly toll discs on one hand and the annual toll disc on the other do not raise any suspicion of indirect discrimination either. The Commission has therefore no reason or legal basis for investigating further the increases or the discrepancies in the percentage increase.

4. Whenever the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty it follows the procedure defined in the EC Treaty itself (Articles 226 and 228 (ex Articles 169 and 171)) for this purpose.

(1) Judgements of 12.9.2000, cases C-276/97 and four others, Commission v. France and four other Member States and judgement of 18.1.2001, case C-83/99, Commission v. Spain (not yet published in the ECR).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4138/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Euro Standard for LPG bottles and tanks

Is there a Euro Standard for LPG gas bottles and tanks applicable across the EU and if not, why not?

Is the Commission aware of accidents caused by the absence of standardisation for this which causes difficulties and sometimes danger for those using gas storage appliances when travelling (e.g. in a caravan) from one Member State to another?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Bottles and tanks intended to contain liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are covered by Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on transportable pressure equipment(1).

That Directive, which must be implemented by the Member States on 1 July 2001 in respect of bottles and 1 July 2003 in respect of tanks, is intended to improve the safety of that equipment and ensure its free movement.

As regards the technical requirements applying to that equipment, that Directive refers to Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road(2) and Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail(3). References to European standards such as standard EN 1442: 1998 relating to LPG bottles have been incorporated into the version of the annexes to those two latter Directives to apply from 1 July 2001. As regards tanks references to European standards should be incorporated into the version of the annexes to those two latter Directives whose implementation is envisaged from 1 July 2003.

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(3) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and outturn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions

1. Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the ERDF to each of the EU's Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the outturn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 programming period?

2. Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the FIFG to each of the EU's Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the outturn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

The amounts allotted to the Objective 1 regions from the European Regional Development Fund over the 1994-1999 programming period can be found by clicking on What does Europe do for your country? under Overview on site www.inforegio.cec.eu.int.

The outturn in terms of commitment is 100 %, all programmes being entirely committed in accordance with the programming. In terms of payments, however, the outturn will only be known after the programmes have been wound up, commencing in June 2001.

The corresponding figures for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance can be found by clicking on Structural interventions for fisheries in Europe under Publications on site europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries. The outturn in terms of commitment is 100 % once more.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3905/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: BSE: funding the destruction of animals

The Dutch audit office recently published the findings of research into implementing legislation and rules on the destruction of animal matter. It concluded that as a result of the high charges for the collection of matter with a very high risk fewer carcasses are being offered by producer.

1. Does the Commission feel that the high destruction charges are compatible with the policy aimed at guaranteeing the best possible protection for consumers?

2. Does the Commission feel that differences in charges between Member States are a form of distortion of competition?

3. Does the Commission intend to take action to harmonise the funding of destruction?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

1. The Commission attaches a paramount importance to consumer protection. The destruction of high-risk animal material is an essential measure, the costs of which should not be so high as to encourage its evasion.

2. Differences between Member States in the level of charges for certain services may have an impact on the competitive position of producers. In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, and as long as measures taken by a Member State to alleviate the costs of certain services are compatible with Community law, in particular the rules for state aids, such differences in the level of charges are the result of policy choices of Member States taken within their own field of competence.

A recent example of harmonisation at Community level is Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000, adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market(1), as amended, in the context of the purchase for destruction scheme, provides that, except for the Community co-financing, all costs from the delivery of the animal to the slaughterhouse until its full destruction shall be financed by national authorities.

3. The proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and Council laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption(2) establishes that a report on financial support in Member States for the processing and disposal of animal materials shall be prepared by the Commission. This report shall be accompanied by appropriate proposals.

(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000. Regulation last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/2001, OJ L 19, 20.1.2001.

(2) COM(2000) 574 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3757/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Interreg programme

Can the Commission state whether the province of Almería, which forms part of the Andalusia region (Spain), is eligible for the Interreg programmes?

If not, can the Commission explain why it is excluded, given its geographical location opposite the North African coast?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The Spanish province of Almería, which belongs to the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, is eligible in 2000-2006 under the programmes for the Western Mediterranean and South West Europe in strand B (transnational co-operation) of the Community Initiative Interreg III and under strand C of that initiative.

The Western Mediterranean programme aims at encouraging transnational co-operation projects between the European areas concerned and the countries of North Africa. The Member States concerned have recently submitted their proposals for programmes in these two target areas to the Commission. The Western Mediterranean programme will receive around 97 million from the European Regional Development Fund and the South West Europe programme 66 135 million.

Conversely, Almería is not eligible under strand A of Interreg III (cross-border co-operation), since this type of co-operation concerns geographically adjacent areas. Only very few maritime borders are eligible for this programme.