ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3757/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Counterfeiting and piracy

On 22 October 1998 the Commission announced the publication of a Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market, with which it launched wide-ranging consultations on the matter with interested parties in the Member States.

The Green Paper pursues four lines of thought: a) support for monitoring activities by the private sector; b) the legal protection of authenticating and security devices; c) an assessment of the sanctions and other means capable of ensuring that intellectual property rights are enforced; and d) the establishment of appropriate administrative cooperation between the Member States' competent authorities.

In the Commission's opinion, what effect may the damage suffered by undertakings have as regards employment?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3756/98 and E-3757/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

Counterfeiting and piracy have harmful social and economic effects on both enterprises and economies. Innovative and creative enterprises are obviously the first to suffer. One need only consider the two aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member - investment and employment - to see that the damage done to enterprises can sometimes be substantial.

With regard to investment, enterprises, and innovative enterprises in particular, often invest substantial sums of money in research, marketing and advertising for the development and commercialisation of new products. Counterfeiters reap the benefits of this investment without having to bear the costs, with the result that counterfeit products can be sold at a lower price than genuine products. The enterprises thus find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. If, therefore, these enterprises are unable to gain a return on their investment, they are likely either to cut back on the amount they invest or switch their investment to countries where they can be assured that their intellectual property rights are given effective protection.

When it comes employment, enterprises which fall victim to counterfeit activities often find themselves in direct competition with the counterfeiters, even if the counterfeit products are generally of inferior quality. As a result, they lose out on sales opportunities and their market shares dwindle. In addition, consumers who have been deceived by counterfeit products when they thought they were buying the genuine article sometimes then steer clear of such products altogether. The resulting loss of custom for these enterprises then has direct repercussions on the numbers they employ.

The Commission's Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market should help measure the true economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy in the single market, including their effects on investment and employment, and establish a framework for devising appropriate solutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3858/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: FIBA decision concerning basketball

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has decided to abolish the restriction on the number of non-Community players in a team - currently a maximum of two - from the 1999-2000 season.

This decision will shatter the foundations of Community basketball, lower the standard of the basketball teams of the Union's Member States, destroy the ambition of young European basketball players to pursue a professional career and, finally, lead inexorably to the sidelining and "unemployment" of existing European professional players.

FIBA's decision actually targets two large groups of professional basketball players, those from the former Yugoslavia and those from the USA, and (most importantly) will result in the loss of national identity in basketball in the Member States of the Union.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether the freedom of basketball players from third countries to establish themselves and work in Europe is consistent with Community law,

2. how it will respond to FIBA's decision, which undermines European basketball and gives second place to European basketball players, and

3. whether the above decision was taken following talks with the European basketball players' union? If not, is such a procedure consistent with the EU's fundamental view that negotiations must take place before any decision is taken which affects working conditions?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 1999)

The Commission can only repeat what it said in its answer to oral question H-1131/98 by the Honourable Member.

The decision taken by FIBA is not, in principle, a breach of Community law. Accordingly, the Commission does not plan to bring any action against that organisation. The decision was taken by the appropriate bodies of the international Federation after those involved in this sport had been able to express their views.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3205/98

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: European overnight railway services

In the light of the decision of the Court of First Instance, does the Commission intend to extend the operating authorisation of European Night Services beyond the present period of eight years?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

In its decision of 15 September 1998, the Court of first instance decided that the agreement concerning European night services does not infringe Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.

Under these circumstances a new Commission decision granting an exemption in accordance with the provisions of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty is not necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Consultative Committee for Cooperatives, Mutual Societies, Associations and Foundations

The CMAF consultative committee was established by Commission Decision 98/215/EC of 13 March 1998(1).

Can the Commission please provide me with the names of the members of the committee and the organisation to which they are affiliated. Can the Commission please also provide details of meetings of the committee to date, and its agenda over the next twelve months?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

Following the Honourable Member's request for information on the Consultative Committee for Cooperatives, Mutual Societies, Associations and Foundations (CMAF), which was established on 13 March 1998, the names and full addresses of the members of this committee, the minutes of the first meeting of the committee held on 30 June 1998, and the minutes of the second meeting held on 6 November 1998 (which are in the process of approval) have all been sent to him directly and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

As regards the agenda for the next year, one meeting is planned for March/April 1999 and another for October/November 1999 (depending on the availability of the committee members, meeting rooms and interpreters). The Committee Bureau will meet 6 to 8 times during the year.

(1) OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 51.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Archaeological finds made during construction of the Athens underground

The Athens underground project which is funded by the EU has been the largest archaeological site in Athens, and over 1000 important finds have come to light. However, questions have been raised about the fate of these finds which are reportedly being poorly housed.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it have any scope for contributing financially to the preservation and display of these finds so as to enable scholars and the public to have access to and study them?

2. Has it received any proposals from the Greek authorities about displaying these archaeological finds in view of the Olympic Games due to be held in Athens in 2004?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 1998)

In the course of the major project to build the Athens underground, the urban development operational programme within the Community support framework for Greece is part-financing archaeological excavations, the classification and registration of finds, and their provisional storage in three buildings renovated for that purpose by Attiko Metro.

A number of the finds will shortly be transferred to and put on display at Athens University for students from the archaeology faculty to study. The remainder belong to the Ministry of Culture's archaeology department.

To date, the Greek authorities have not put forward more specific proposals on projects relating to the finds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2390/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Value of fish caught in Community waters

Can the Commission indicate the total value of fish caught in EU waters in the most recent year for which figures are available? Can it indicate the value and quantity of fish caught within the Irish 200-mile limit (most recent year for which data is available) and by which fishing fleets this catch was landed?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

The figure for nominal catches (defined by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the Commission as the equivalent live weight of the quantities landed) was 7,7 million tonnes (including aquaculture) for the EU-15 in 1995. This information is given on page 15 and subsequent pages of the statistical bulletin sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament. Developments over the past ten years are also given for each Member State, for the main fishing zones and for the most important species.

The value of EU-15 landings was ECU 7 224 million in 1995 (see Chapter 4, page 19 et seq. of the statistical bulletin).

The Commission does not have data on the catches made in Ireland's 200 mile zone nor on the boats fishing there. The statistics are produced on the basis of the rectangles defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). These rectangles do not coincide with exclusive economic areas defined by a 200 mile limit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3871/98

by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Independence of the European Central Bank

The latest opinion polls in the countries participating in monetary union confirm a sharp rise in the population's confidence in the common European currency. One reason for this is the effort so far made to achieve and respect the convergence criteria, particularly price stability.

Under Article 107 of the EC Treaty, the governments of the Member States undertake to respect the independence of the European Central Bank and of the national central banks and not to seek to influence the members of their decision-making bodies in the performance of their tasks. This independence secures the overriding objective of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB): maintaining price stability. The shaping of monetary policy is therefore the sole responsibility of the decision-making bodies of the ESCB which have undertaken that task.

How does the Commission plan to ensure, in the light of the most recent discussions, that the key Treaty provisions on safeguarding the independence of the ESCB are also respected in the future?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No E-3596/98 by Mr Friedrich(1).

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 84.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3233/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Structural operations in NUTS II regions

Under the Commission proposals, how many programmes would need to be in place for the management of all structural operations in a NUTS II region that was part eligible for Objective 2, part Objective 3, part transitional, and also benefited from rural accompanying measures?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Under the Commission's proposals(1), a single integrated regional programme at NUTS II level would normally cover all structural funds interventions under the new objective 2. The programme would incorporate actions to improve human resources in accordance with the priorities identified for objective 3, thus avoiding the need for a separate objective 3 programme, and the additional administrative costs arising from it. It would also include, where appropriate, the transitional support from the European regional development fund until the end of 2003. In objective 1 and 2 areas rural development measures shall be part of the integrated regional programmes. However this requirement does not apply to the accompanying measures.

(1) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Council

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Ratification of ILO Convention 177 on homeworking

On 27 May 1998 the Commission adopted a communication recommending that Member States ratify Convention 177 on homeworking. Ratification involves accepting a series of obligations designed to improve the situation of workers engaged in this form of work and a regular review of domestic policy with regard to homeworking, which will enable improvements to be made to the working conditions of these workers.

Bearing in mind that 6,9 million people in the EU, or 4,9 % of the EU's working population, work from home and that thus far Finland is the only Member State to have ratified the convention, what measures does the Council intend to adopt to ensure that the other Member States follow suit?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

The Council is informed that Convention No 177 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), to which the Honourable Member refers, has so far been ratified by only one Member State of the European Community, i.e. Finland. As no other State has ratified the Convention, it has not yet entered into force. On 26 May 1998 the Commission did indeed adopt a Recommendation addressed to the Member States to encourage them to ratify the Convention. Member States were asked to notify the Commission no later than November 1999 of the measures they had taken in response to the Recommendation. Once the deadline laid down by the Recommendation, i.e. December 1999, has expired, the Commission will decide whether it wishes to take any further steps on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3975/98

by Raphaël Chanterie (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Value added tax on veterinary services

Further to the European obligation to apply the standard VAT rate to veterinary services, such services appear to be liable to VAT ranging from a minimum rate of 15 % to a maximum of 25 % in certain Member States.

Article 13 of the sixth directive on indirect taxation, directive 77/388/EEC(1), permits Member States to grant exemption for "hospital and medical care" and "the provision of medical care", i.e. not for veterinary services, although annex H provides for a lower rate of VAT for pharmaceutical products for medical and veterinary purposes.

Are there sound reasons for making a distinction in the percentage between pharmaceutical products for veterinary use which attract a lower rate and veterinary services which do not, and is it not possible to revise the existing directive on the basis of the Protocol on the protection and welfare of animals?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

Pursuant to Article 12(3)(a), taken in conjunction with Annex H, of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC), Member States may, subject to certain conditions, apply a reduced rate of VAT to pharmaceutical products used for health care, prevention of diseases and treatment for medical and veterinary purposes. By virtue of that same Directive, they may also apply a reduced rate of VAT to supplies of goods and services intended for use in agricultural production. These cover animal care provided in the course of the agricultural production process and the corresponding medicinal products. However, the Commission has taken due note of the Honourable Member's observations and will take them into account during the forthcoming work on VAT rates.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3828/98

by Riccardo Garosci (PPE) to the Council

(15 December 1998)

Subject: Request for the printing and issuing of the euro 500 note to be delayed for a year

The euro will become part of daily life as from 1 January 2002 when bank-notes and coins will be issued. During the next three years, a period of no obligation, no prohibition, preparations will be made in the public and private sectors through public information campaigns and business training schemes.

The euro 500 note (worth about ITL 1 million) has too high a face value compared with the notes currently circulating in the 11 euro countries; no existing note in the EMU is worth euro 500. The public (already confronted with 7 new bank-notes) and business alike are frightened by the value of the euro 500 note and could have difficulty accepting it. In addition there are already rumours of counterfeit euros; a die has already been stolen and there is a danger of receiving. The introduction of the euro must therefore be planned and the public helped to overcome any psychological or practical difficulty that may arise.

Will the Council therefore delay the printing and issuing of the euro 500 bank-note for one year, from 1 January 2002 to 1 January 2003?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

According to Article 105a of the EC Treaty, the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro bank notes within the Community.

The Council, therefore, has no competence on the matter raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

However, during its session of 23 November 1998, the Council stressed the need to combat counterfeiting of euro bank notes and coins efficiently and invited Member States to intensify their preparations in this respect in close cooperation with the ECB and the European Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2988/98

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Meat inspection fees pursuant to Directive 93/118/EC

Directive 93/118/EC(1) lays down lump-sum fees for meat inspections. A number of establishments obliged to pay fees have taken legal action against district authorities demanding higher fees.

1. Can individual establishments invoke the Directive, which is addressed to the Member States?

2. Can the lump-sum amounts be exceeded, without any requirements having to be satisfied, until they cover the actual costs?

3. When costs are calculated, what is the point of reference: the individual authority or the total costs incurred by a Member State?

Reply given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

1. The Commission is of the opinion that Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat may not be invoked by individual establishments. This view is based on the application to the text and objectives of this Directive of criteria laid down by the Court of Justice.

2. Directive 85/73/CEE, as amended by Directive 93/118/CEE, lays down flat-rate amounts for Community fees. These are based on a number of parameters, such as the average time needed for the inspection, administrative costs and staff costs. The Directive offers Member States a certain amount of flexibility starting from these central amounts.

This solution is designed to ensure the effective functioning of the inspection system and avoid any distortion of competition. However, flexibility is conditional on certain requirements. In other words, Member States may request payment of amounts higher than the standard levels subject to certain conditions laid down in the provisions of both the Directive and its Annex. The first requirement is laid down in Article 2(3): "Member States shall be authorised to collect an amount exceeding the level or levels of the Community fees, provided that the total fee collected by each Member State is not greater than the actual figure for inspection costs."

Member States must be able to justify their method of calculation (Article 2(5)). Once this requirement is satisfied, the Member States concerned may, for meat coming under Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat(2), increase the standard amounts for fees for individual establishments, subject to the conditions laid down (Annex, Chapter 1(4)(a)), or "collect a special fee covering actual costs" (Annex, Chapter 1(4)(b)). There has been some debate about the meaning of the word "special". In the traditional sense, i.e. specific to a certain species and common to all individual animals of that species, this implies that the Member State may opt to increase the standard amount for fees above the Community level in line with costs actually incurred.

3. The text refers to the total fees collected by each Member State.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.

(2) OJ 121, 29.7.1964.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3481/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Transport of animals

The Commission has submitted to the Council a number of proposals for amendments concerning the transport of live farm animals for periods of up to 24 hours, when journeys of eight hours are currently the rule. Such long journey times are incomprehensible, because long journeys can easily be avoided and because livestock are now less able to withstand being transported than they used to be when they had more exercise. There is no reason for long journey times either for animals kept for production or for breeding stock. Frozen sperm for insemination purposes and frozen ova are the alternative to transporting live breeding stock. Battery hens have such fragile bones that they cannot be moved at all without their legs or wings being broken. Tethered sows also suffer very badly. Horses, pigs and calves suffer from stress when transported. Owing to the high cost of lairage, space is used so as to obtain the maximum financial return, and animals have very little freedom of movement. This ought to mean that permitted journey times are reduced so as to prevent unnecessary suffering. On-farm killing of animals is now a technical possibility, and the aim must be to end the transport of live farm animals altogether.

How does the Commission justify these amendments relating to journey times for live animals, and will it work towards abolishing the transport of live animals altogether?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The proposals drafted by the Commission for submission to the Council are based on scientific evidence. There are in principle no differences in needs between animals transported for slaughter and those transported for other purposes, like breeding and fattening. The scientific information does not provide evidence for a ban on transport of animals designated for slaughter. What is important is that the conditions in which animals are transported comply with the needs of the animals.

The present Community standards will, when correctly enforced in practice, improve the welfare of the animals.

General slaughtering of animals on the farm is not allowed from an animal welfare, animal health and public health point of view. In this context it is important to take into account the need of special equipment and facilities and skills of those involved in slaughtering animals.

The Commission agrees that there are alternatives to transport of live animals, like transport of meat, semen, ova and embryos. Community legislation has been established in these areas.