ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3194/98

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: European Heritage Days

The European Heritage Days were held in 44 countries of Europe on 25 and 26 September 1998. On these days, cathedrals which normally charge for entry offered free admission. The aim of the days is to familiarise people with the monuments which make up their heritage and make them aware of the need to conserve them.

Did the European Union take part in the European Heritage Days?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

The European Heritage Days initiated by the Council of Europe in 1991 familiarise many members of the public with their European cultural heritage, by giving them free access to buildings normally closed to the public.

In the context of its cultural action the Commission endeavours to promote public awareness of and access to the European cultural heritage. The Commission fully appreciates the impact on the public and the European dimension of the European heritage days, with which it has been financially associated for several years.

The Commission made the following contributions:

- 1994: ECU 70 000

- 1995: ECU 70 000

- 1996: ECU 70 000

- 1997: ECU 70 000

- 1998: ECU 80 000 (subject to completion of the budgetary and administrative procedures)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3949/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: VAT rates for veterinary surgeons

Can the Commission specify the rates at which VAT is applied to the services of veterinary surgeons in each of the EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 1999)

VAT rates applied to veterinary services as at 1 January 1999

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Community programme to give university teachers practical experience of business

The shortcomings of university graduates during their training period in companies have led large firms in various Community countries to negotiate with the relevant universities in order to try to ensure that students meet the firms' training requirements.

They therefore propose that this process should start with the teachers, by enabling them to acquire practical business experience so that they may be better qualified to tackle their training duties, i.e. that they should practice what they preach.

Does the Commission agree that it ought to promote a programme of exchanges to give university teachers practical experience in firms in the various Member States, in order to enable them to improve the training of students and hence remedy the shortcomings attributed to graduates by firms when they start work there after a period of training?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 1999)

The Leonardo da Vinci programme for the implementation of a European Community vocational training policy (Council Decision 94/819/EC of 6 December 1994(1)) offers the possibility of transnational exchange programmes for instructors (measures I.1.2.c and II.1.2.b). To this end, the Commission provides financial support for transnational exchange programmes between undertakings and training bodies or universities with the focus on the preparation of transnational training programmes.

As indicated in its proposal "Towards a Europe of knowledge"(2), which sets out the guidelines for a European educational area with the objective of lifelong learning, the Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the need to develop these measures. The Commission's proposal for the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme(3) does in fact seek to strengthen physical mobility programmes, including transnational exchange programmes between companies and training organisations or universities, in order to bring the world of education and training even closer to the world of work.

Under the current rules of the European Social Fund, various programmes in all Objective 1 Member States and in a number of other regions provide for the upgrading of the output from universities to enable them to reach higher standards. The same provision is made for organisations involved with technical and vocational education throughout the Community, and for teacher training colleges where these are not part of the university system. In all these areas, training periods in enterprises are included if appropriate. Under the reformed Structural Funds, Objective 3 provides for "supporting the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and employment", which will further support the possibility of training periods in companies for university teachers.

(1) OJ L 340, 29.12.1994.

(2) COM(97) 563 final.

(3) OJ C 309, 9.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: European Central Bank

According to a recent study by the independent Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), the governors of the Member States' central banks have too much power in the ECB compared with the Executive Board and there is a risk that the governors might let themselves be guided too much by the needs of their own countries. This might arise particularly when decisions have to be taken quickly.

What are the Commission's views on this study, which also criticises the inadequate bank supervision and lack of clear structures for crisis management?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The study in question is indeed, like other recent studies on the same subject, a valuable contribution to the public debate about the making of monetary policy in economic and monetary union (EMU). The Commission is of the opinion that the provisions of the Treaty and the European system of central banks (ESCB) statute on the structure, tasks and instruments are adequate for the conduct of an efficient, stability-oriented single monetary policy in the euro area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3542/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Reafforestation of areas damaged by fire

There were numerous forest fires this summer throughout the Union's Mediterranean region, especially in Catalonia, where over 27 000 hectares were destroyed. The fires pose serious dangers in the form of desertification and alterations to the ecosystem in areas already beset by natural handicaps, where timber production is very often a vital means of subsistence.

Does the Commission not believe, therefore, that it should make specific provision for aid to reafforest fire-damaged areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 1999)

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3579/98 by Mrs Sierra Gonzále(1) on measures taken by it in regions affected by forest fires. The Commission takes the view that the instruments referred to in that answer are the appropriate framework for such measures.

(1) See page 90.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3739/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Agenda 2000 budget

The recent Court of Auditors' report claims that the Commission has seriously miscalculated the cost of its Agenda 2000 proposals and that they could exceed the EU's budget by billions of pounds. Can the Commission say if this is a correct assessment of what is likely to happen?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

On 29 May 1998 the Council asked the Court of Auditors to send it any comments it might have on the financial aspects of the legislative proposals relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the Structural Funds, pre-accession aid and the guarantee fund for external action, presented by the Commission as part of Agenda 2000. On 29 October 1998 the Court adopted opinion 10/98 on these matters.

The Commission can find no general statement in the Court's opinion leading to the conclusion which is the subject of the Honourable Member's question. There are just two comments, relating exclusively to the reform of the CAP, which could have prompted the question: the Court refers to the risk of world wheat prices falling below the proposed intervention price (paragraph 82 of the opinion) and judges the forecast of the increase in demand for beef (paragraph 83) to be optimistic. The Commission has no new facts in its possession at present which would warrant a revision of its assumptions.

The Court also referred to the case of payment of direct aid in new Member States following enlargement of the Community. The Commission clearly stated in its proposals that it was not considering the possibility of such payment being made in the new Member States during the coming period given the present average prices of agricultural products in these countries and the danger that this aid could disrupt economies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3836/98

by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Establishment of an office to investigate internal and external fraud

Will the Commission provide a legal opinion demonstrating how the establishment of an office for the investigation of internal and external fraud completely independent of and without any links to the Commission (as described by Mr Santer during the debate on the Bösch report in plenary on 6 October 1998), can be based on the Treaty, with reference to both the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty, or whether the establishment of this office would require an amendment to the Treaty?

Will the Commission also state how such a proposal can be compatible with its obligations pursuant to Article 280 of the Amsterdam Treaty, especially in the light of the debate in several countries on the implications of ratification of that article?

Finally, will the Commission state the legal grounds for using the "catch-all" Article 235 of the current Treaty as the possible legal basis for establishing this office, both in relation to the new Article 280 of the Amsterdam Treaty and in the light of the reservations several Member States have against the use of Article 235?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 1999)

The Court of Justice has consistently ruled(1) that the choice of a legal basis for an instrument should be based on objective factors amenable to judicial review. These include mainly the purpose and content of the instrument. On 1 December 1998 the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Fraud Investigation Office(2). Given its aim and content the proposal is based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty and Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty; the Commission considers that in the current state of Community law the Treaties do not provide a specific legal basis for the Regulation.

In the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal the Commission points out (paragraph 16) that the Amsterdam Treaty in fact establishes a specific legal basis. The new Article 280 EC provides that under the codecision procedure the Community can adopt "the necessary measures in the fields of the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community". The Commission has announced that as soon as the Treaty of Amsterdam comes into force it will amend the proposal using the new provision. Since this proposal for a Regulation is currently under consultation in Parliament more detailed explanations regarding the choice of a legal basis will be supplied in that context.

(1) Judgment of 13 May 1997 in Case C-233/94 Germany v Parliament and the Council [1997] ECR -2405.

(2) COM(98) 717 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3217/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Compensation for redundancies at Piraiki-Patraiki Group

The Piraiki-Patraiki cotton industry group has been in special-status receivership under Greek law since 1992. DR 2 500 000 million are to be paid out to the Group's redundant workers in compensation (Ministry of Development Decision 863 of 14 January 1997).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is the EU contributing to the payment of this compensation and from which programme?

2. If so, has the Commission checked whether the criteria for payment of compensation have been applied uniformly to all workers?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

1. The Commission does not contribute to the payment of this compensation.

2. The amount of compensation in the event of redundancies is not specified by Community law. The main purpose of Council Directive 92/56/EEC of 24 June 1992 amending Directive 75/129/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), and codified by Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998(2), is to afford greater protection to workers in the event of collective redundancies by reducing the existing differences between national laws as regards the "practical arrangements and procedure" and measures designed to alleviate the consequences of redundancy for workers. Hence the amount of compensation to be paid to workers in the event of cancellation of their employment contracts is exclusively a matter for domestic legislation, which determines the precise scale.

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.

(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3409/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Serious difficulties of the Crisafulli family

The family of Anselmo Crisafulli, a well-known criminal lawyer, were evicted from their home and obliged to move to France, where they used all the family assets to purchase a farm which turned out to be a complete swindle, as a result of which legal proceedings are under way in France.

As a result of this swindle the Crisafulli, by now penniless, were obliged to return to Italy, which they did due to the intervention of the Italian President's office, which met the costs of their return and found them a flat, from which, however, they were subsequently evicted yet again due to the above-mentioned economic circumstances.

This series of disasters has obviously caused various psychological and family problems, partly due to the fact that the two sons in their forties are unemployed.

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state:

1. Whether there are possibilities at Community level of providing practical assistance to the family of a leading member of the Italian legal profession?

2. Whether are any employment opportunities are open to the Crisafulli brothers in view of the special circumstances in this case?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

In the area of social security the only existing binding Community legislation concerns the equal treatment of men and women(1) and the co-ordination of social security schemes for migrant workers and members of their families(2). The organisation and functioning of social security schemes and social assistance as well as eligibility for different benefits under those schemes (such as unemployment benefits) are matters for the national authorities, provided that the above mentioned legislation is respected.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on what employment opportunities may be available for individuals.

(1) Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ L 6, 10.1.1979) and Directive 86/378/EEC (OJ L 225, 12.8.1986) which was amended by Directive 96/97/EC (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997).

(2) Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, updated by Regulation (EC) 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3957/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Safe delivery of food aid to Russia

The European Union has promised Russia food aid to the value of 2,4 billion marks in the form of cereals, rice, meat and milk powder. However, ensuring the safe delivery of food aid is seen as a problem, as it is difficult to supervise in Russia.

What will the Commission do, in cooperation with the Russian authorities, to ensure that food aid reaches its intended destination?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

A number of measures have been taken in relation to the control of the distribution of the food aid programme within the Russian Federation.

The regions and areas that will be the beneficiaries of the programme as well as the distribution of the products by region are listed in an annex to the memorandum of understanding between the Community and Russia. This annex will be subject to an official decision by the government of the Russian Federation, which will be published. Consequently, all regional governors will be able to check that they receive the quantities which have been designated for them.

The products included in the programme will be delivered in several consecutive steps. The Russian government will on a monthly basis transmit reports on the implementation of the programme to the Commission. The reports will contain all necessary details on the implementation of the programme (by product and by region) as well as a record of the special account and its use.

The Court of auditors of the Community has the right to carry out audits in the Russian Federation related to the food supply programme. Pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) 2802/98 of 17 December 1998, the memorandum will provide for monitoring, auditing, control and evaluation activities to be carried out within the Russian territory, in particular by the Court of auditors or by outside bodies delegated by the Commission for the purpose. The Commission will call on outside technical assistance for monitoring, auditing, control and evaluation of the proper conduct of the operation.

If the Commission receives information which gives it reason to doubt the proper implementation of the food supply programme, the Commission may suspend the operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3228/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Taxation of pensioners

In which country should tax be paid on pensions? The country which pays the pension, or the country of residence?

Denmark for instance has terminated its double taxation agreement with Portugal, which means that Danish pensioners in Portugal now have to pay tax in Denmark on their Danish pensions, whereas Danish pensioners in Spain still pay tax on their Danish pensions in Spain.

Does the Commission consider it right that a country should treat pensioners who live abroad differently when it comes to paying tax?

Are there guidelines for the taxation of pensioners living abroad? If so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 1999)

There is no Community legislation governing the right to tax pension income. Most bilateral taxation treaties however include such provisions, drafted often on the lines of Article 18 of the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) model tax convention on income and on capital which attributes the right to tax to the country of residence. If no bilateral treaty is concluded, both countries have, in principle, the right to tax. It is up to their national legislation to ensure that double taxation is avoided.

If a situation of effective double taxation occurred, the compatibility of such double taxation with the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty would need to be examined. However, in the absence of harmonising or co-ordinating Community rules, the simple fact that pensioners who have moved abroad to different Member States are subject to a different tax burden does not constitute a violation of the Treaty.

The Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its current work to remove those obstacles to the free movement of workers and also to the free provision of financial services which stem from the complex and varying tax treatment of supplementary pensions and life insurance across the Community and insufficient co-ordination of taxation policies in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Conversion of Italgas gasometers in Rome

A few months ago work began on the conversion into car parks of two gasometers in Rome which have been disused since 1986.

In the course of the work a number of environmental safety problems have arisen:

1. Large quantities of toxic waste derived from coal (naphthalene, gasolene, etc.) deposited over a period of 80 years remain at the base of the gasometers and the unpleasant smell of the fumes given off is causing the inhabitants of the Ostiense and Mercati Generali area to feel ill.

2. The iron structures are being sandblasted to remove the rust covering them with the result that sand is being spread through the air over a very large area, to the extent that the cars of Romana Gas employees and of residents are being damaged. Furthermore, complaints have been lodged with the local magistrate by social organizations, including UGL Energia of the Italgas Group, and by residents.

In view of the above, does the Commission not think it would be advisable for it to approach the Italian authorities to request that the Italian laws implementing the Community directives on health and safety in the workplace and on the protection of the environment are complied with on the building sites referred to above.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The information given by the Honourable Member would indicate that the works which are causing problems of sand spreading through the air are covered neither by Annex I nor by Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC(1). Consequently, there is no legal obligation to make them subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

As regards the coal derived toxic waste at the basis of the gasometer in the area known as "Ostiense" and "Mercati Generali" in Rome, the information given by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to make an assessment in the light of Community environmental legislation. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to identify any Community environmental legislation applicable to the specific case.

The Community directives on health and safety at work lay down minimum requirements for the protection of health and safety of workers at the workplace and make the employer responsible for the occupational health and safety of his workers. Consequently, Community health and safety directives are not applicable to residents of the area concerned, or to any other party outside the employer-worker relationship.

The enforcement of national provisions is a matter for the Italian authorities, who have to decide whether the national laws implementing the Community directives on health and safety at work have been respected in this case.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.