ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1538/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: EU and WTO rules regarding business with companies based in tax havens

There has been some discussion within the UK about the propriety of the sale by the Inland Revenue of tax and customs offices to the Bermuda-based company Mapeley Steps for GBP 370 million. Some of the details of the case are laid-out on page 26 of the 21 February 6 March 2003 issue of the investigative/satirical publication Private Eye which has taken a close interest in the case. The Chairman of the Inland Revenue appears to have justified the sale of the buildings on the grounds that it is contrary to EU and WTO rules to turn-down a contract with a company on the grounds that it operates within a tax haven, although there appears also to be some dispute as to whether Mapely Steps was registered in Bermuda or the UK at the time of the sale.

Can the Commission clarify the EU and WTO rules regarding the sale of government property to companies based in tax havens and whether the government in question would be entitled to take into account the overall net benefit to the Exchequer when deciding to make a sale? Can the Commission also confirm whether or not it is correct that the United States government will not sign contracts or come to arrangements with any organisation based in a tax haven,

and, if so, whether that is in the opinion of the Commission compatible with the US WTO. obligations? Finally, has the Commission asked the British government for clarification of the details surrounding this particular sale and, if so, is the Commission satisfied that the British Government and the Inland Revenue have acted in conformity with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

There are no World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules governing property transactions with companies based in tax havens. WTO agreements generally apply to trade in goods and services and not to property transactions.

Community law on taxation does not contain any provisions specifically applicable to property transactions carried out between the public authorities of a Member State and a company based in a jurisdiction described as a tax haven. However, and more generally, the Commission considers that more transparent tax systems would minimise the opportunity for fraud and tax evasion. It reiterates its commitment to eliminating, on as broad a geographical basis as possible, harmful tax practices which distort free and fair competition and hamper the cross-border activities of businesses.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by the City of Frosinone

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds to regenerate areas in industrial decline and to reduce imbalances in social and economic development, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the ERDF?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The municipality of Frosinone is partially eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Lazio SPD (single programming document) for 2000-2006.

The Lazio SPD was approved by a Commission decision(1) and provides for ERDF finance totalling EUR 371,5 million towards public expenditure totalling EUR 845,5 million.

Since the Lazio SPD is a programme whose management is decentralised, the authority responsible for implementing the assistance is the region of Lazio, which set out in the programme complement the criteria for selecting projects and which is responsible for considering applications. It is therefore from that administration that the Honourable Member should seek precise information on the projects submitted and financed for the municipality of Frosinone.

(1) COM(2001) 2118 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1324/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject: Statement by Mr Gómez-Reino on the resignation of the Santer Commission

In the European Voice of 27 March 2 April in an article by David Cronin, Mr Santiago Gómez-Reino is quoted as saying that Jacques Santer and his Commission stepped down due to fraud allegations that were disproportionate, completely unjust and for a large part simply non-existent.

Does the current Commission agree with the statement by Mr Santiago Gómez-Reino?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0749/03 by Mr Dell'Alba(1)

(1) See page 83.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0678/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Arrest of the Peruvian national Nelson Palomino

Last week, whilst I was staying in Lima Nelson Palomino one of the leaders of the Peruvian campesinos was arrested on charges of incitement to terrorism, an offence covered by the Fujimori government's Penal Code, which is currently undergoing reform. Peruvian press sources indicate that Palomino is allegedly guilty of encouraging demonstrations and road blocks without ruling out the use of force.

Relations between the Peruvian Government and the campesinos are particularly tense because of a stalemate in the dialogue on a package of agricultural reforms, in particular the disastrous policies to eradicate by force the cultivation of coca.

During my meeting with the leaders of the Peruvian anti-drugs agency Devida, they refused to give me and the Secretary of the International Anti-Prohibitionist League, Marco Perduca, any information on the situation of the campesinos and, in particular, on the arrest of Palomino.

Can the Council ask the Peruvian authorities for information to be passed on to Parliament -concerning a situation which, if it is not tackled promptly in a spirit of dialogue, threatens to lead to outbreaks of violence such as those which caused dozens of people to die and hundreds to be injured in neighbouring Bolivia in recent weeks?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council has been informed that, the Peruvian Public Prosecutor's Office, has formally charged Nelson Palomino la Serna with the offences of inter alia supporting terrorism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. An action in this respect has been brought before the District Court of Aynes, San Francisco Province, Department of Ayacucho. The case is currently at the preliminary investigation stage.

According to information provided on Friday 11 April by the Ayacucho regional directorate of the national prisons institute (INPE), Nelson Palomino was being held in Lianamilla Prison.

It is not for the Council to comment on an ongoing judicial process at national level. Nevertheless, the Council reaffirms that the maintenance of the rule of law and of democratic and civil rights is a key factor for peace in that region.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Conflict of interests at the Commission

Mr Detlef Eckert, head of the INFSO.01 unit (Analysis, policy planning, eEurope strategy formulation unit reporting to the Director-General) has been granted unpaid leave (CCP) for three years.

According to the Financial Times, Mr Eckert is currently working for Microsoft. It would appear that he dealt with the Microsoft case and the firm's dominant position as part of his responsibilities in formulating a strategy for the sector, as confirmed by Mr Ed Black, President of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

1. What administrative measures does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis this manifest instance of a conflict of interests?

2. On what information did the Commission's spokesman base his statement that Mr Eckert had not dealt with the Microsoft case, given that the people he was in contact with firmly maintain that the opposite was true?

3. What investigations has the Commission conducted into the damage which any proven convergence of interests between Mr Eckert and Microsoft would cause to EU industries and the Commission's supplies?

4. Can the Commission guarantee that the competition services, placed under the authority of Commissioner Monti, did not receive information, however incomplete, on the Microsoft case?

5. Does the Commission not consider, in any case, that all the strategies relating to the IT sector should immediately be reviewed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that an official on unpaid leave (CCP) is subject to the same obligations as an official in active employment, namely the obligations of independence, dignity and confidentiality.

In the event of the Commission learning that an official is engaging in an activity that has not been authorised or that an authorised activity is being exercised in a way that is not consistent with his or her obligations, the Commission will take appropriate measures.

The Honourable Member may be aware that the Commission is currently considering whether it would be appropriate to establish more detailed rules governing the granting of CCP and the conduct of officials on such leave.

With regard to the case raised by the Honourable Member, it must be pointed out that the Directorates-General of the Commission have to be in contact with the various players of the sectors for which they have responsibility. Hence it is possible for any enterprise to be in contact with the Directorate-General for the Information Society.

As far as questions regarding competition are concerned, the Information Society DG, like the other Directorates-General, is associated with the inter-service consultations of the Competition DG, which is the lead department for such questions.

It should be noted that, in this case, the official in question was asked to sign declarations, especially to the effect that he would respect the obligations imposed on him by the Staff Regulations in order to ensure that he was aware of all potential consequences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Prato

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Prato, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Holding company called Newco set up by Rome City Council suspected infringement of competition rules

In September 2002 Rome City Council drew up a draft decision aimed at setting up a limited company to be responsible for the unified management of all the companies in which the Council has shares. The transaction was supposed to be completed by the transfer of all the shares in the 83 companies controlled by the Council to the new company, 97 % of the shares in which would be held by the City Council.

Since the purpose of the new company is to manage the Council's moveable and immovable property and provide publicity services, the transaction described above raises a number of doubts as regards compliance with rules on competition and the concentration of companies.

The new holding would, as a result of the transfer from the Council, have a significant holding in all the companies which currently carry out public services on behalf of Rome City Council, but the company itself states in its statutes, that its purpose is to provide services to Rome City Council and the companies controlled by it.

The remaining 3 % would be held by the company Risorse per Roma S.p.A., which is one of the companies controlled by the Council and hence by the future holding company. It would therefore have a share in a company which in its turn has a 96,94 % holding in the former, which would constitute a sort of underwriting of its own shares.

In view of all this, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does the purpose stated in the statutes of the new company not infringe Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89(1) and Regulation (EC) No 1310/97(2)?

2. Does the transfer of shares described above not infringe Community rules on company law, in particular Directive 77/91/EEC(3), in particular Article 18 thereof?

3. What is the Commission's opinion on the matter?

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

1. The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the question concerning the compliance with the competition rules of the EC Treaty.

2. On the basis of the information provided it is not possible to express an opinion about the conformity of the measure with the Community Company Law, especially with Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976(1), and in particular Article 18 thereof.

3. See answers to question 1 and 2.

(1) Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject: Traditional herbal remedies

The UK Flower Essence Producers Association believes that the Commission's rejection of Amendment 13 to the Traditional Herbal Remedies Directive puts Bach Flower Remedies and its related products under threat. Could the Commission comment on the following concerns expressed by the Association.

1. The methods of production required by the Directive will render Bach Flower Remedies products as being incorrectly labelled as a flower essence and ineffective as a flower essence.

2. The required method of production is inimical to the traditional methods of making flower essences. Accordingly, even if products, say from Nelson Bach, were registered under the Directive, they would no longer be classified as flower essences. They might be able to be classified as homeopathic, but, by default, and under the Trades Descriptions Act, they could no longer be marketed as Bach Flower Remedies as they would not be made in the way that Edward Bach laid down in 1936.

3. Within the range of Bach Flower Remedies there are several which would not be on the positive herbal list (i.e. Star of Bethlehem). This would deplete the list of traditional products.

Could the Commission also comment on the UK Flower Essence Producers Association's concerns that the impact of the Directive on Bach Flower Remedies will seriously damage this traditional British industry and have wide-ranging economic impacts.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and the Council amending the Directive 2001/83/EC(1) as regards traditional herbal medicinal products intends to provide a harmonised legal framework for these specific medicinal products, removing the differences on the status between the Member States to facilitate the free movement in the Single Market.

Article 1 of Directive 2001/83 EC states the definition of medicinal product. Traditional herbal medicinal products are being defined in the Commission's proposal of herbal medicinal products; this definition is identical with the scientific definition agreed within the European Pharmacopoeia of the Council of Europe.

Regarding the Parliament Amendment 13 and the concern expressed by the British Flower Essence Producers Association, the Commission considers that the Bach Flower Remedies could continue to be regulated under the same conditions in the Community as a flower essence, after the entry into force of this Directive, as far as these products are not marketed either as medicinal products or as traditional herbal medicinal products.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.