ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
OnWRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/98 by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Taxation of companies' net assets

In compliance with the principle that capital contributions or the raising of capital may not be taxed more than once in the European Community so as not to create barriers to the free movement of capital, Article 1 of Directive 69/335/EEC ((OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25. )) of 17 July 1969 requires harmonization of taxation of contributions of capital to capital companies. The directive stipulates that Member States may not apply taxes on the raising of capital by such companies apart from capital duty, the rate of which, following the amendment introduced by Article 1 of Directive 73/80/EEC ((OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13. )) of 18 April 1973, may not exceed 1% (Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC).

Under Italian regulations, capital duty (the only tax allowed by the Community legislation referred to above) is represented by the registration tax on capital contributions other than contributions of property rights: this tax is charged at the rate of 1%. The tax on the net assets of companies thus comes on top of this registration tax and has been applied at the rate of an additional 0.75% to the equity capital at the financial year end, year after year despite the fact that it is neither exceptional or temporary in nature.

The tax thus has an equivalent effect equivalent to that of the ordinary capital duty and as such is in breach of the provisions of Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969.

The approach consistently adopted under national and Community case law on non-compliance of this kind would require the regulations on the tax on the net assets of companies to be repealed immediately and with retroactive effect, without any need for intervention by the legislator. On these grounds, many Italian companies have applied to the Ministry of Finance for the refund of amounts wrongly paid in respect of the tax on net assets of companies together with accrued interest.

Does the Commission not consider that it should remind the Italian Government of its duty to amend the relevant legislation and introduce new provisions without delay?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Disability benefits in EU Member States

Can the Commission please indicate, on a country-by-country basis, the amount of money spent by each Member State on disability benefits?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0185/98 and E-0186/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0744/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Contravention of EU competition law

With both the Scottish and Irish Football Associations threatening to prevent Wimbledon FC and now Clydebank FC from relocating to Dublin, does not the Commission feel that such action by those football associations is a clear contravention of EU competition law?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Oral Question H-200/98 by Mr Crowley during question time at Parliament's March 1998 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (March 1998). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0307/98 by Luis Campoy Zueco (PPE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Aid for music

DG X has recently launched a support programme for culture which includes a section devoted to music. This initiative is to be welcomed. Can the Commission say whether there is any other cultural aid programme which might serve as a framework for grants for musical projects?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that promoting musical creation and bringing it to the people are and must remain indispensable features of Community cultural action. The cultural framework programme 2000-2005 will pay special attention to music as specified in the conclusions of the Council of 18 December 1997 on music in Europe ((OJ C 1, 3.1.1998. )). Moreover, the Commission would recall that among recent work by the European institutions relating to music, Parliament held a hearing on 18 June 1997. On that occasion the Commission handed out, by way of information, a list showing how the Community had supported music and in addition to current Community programmes, a large number of Community programmes which in one way or another had supported music. It should be emphasised that these other programmes do not give priority to culture. This list showed that most Community funds for music came from the Structural Funds. By way of guidance, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted roughly ECU 38.33 million between 1989 and 1997. The Community allocated ECU 13.22 million to cultural events between 1991 and 1996. Under the Kaleidoscope programme (Decision No 719/96/EC); ((OJ L 99, 20.4.1996. )) funds have been given each year to cooperation projects in music. In addition, in 1998, the call for proposals entitled 'Community support for cultural development projects' ((OJ C 6, 10.1.1998. )) provides in Action1 that music will be given special emphasis. This information on the entire cultural sector can also be found in the 'First report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action' ((COM(96) 160 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/98 by Ulf Holm (V) to the Council (23 April 1998)

Subject: Swedish language under threat

For a number of years, the European Patent Organization, EPO, has persistently raised the question of changing the rules governing patent applications in Europe. The EPO is now proposing that only a small part of a patent should need to be translated into the language of the country in which the application for a patent is made. Under the proposal, it should in the main be sufficient to translate the whole of the patent into English, German and French.

The implications of the proposal are that the position in the EU of languages such as Swedish would be severely restricted. It is also an attack on our democratic principles. Swedish citizens would lose their right to read documents nationally applicable in Sweden in their own language.

Does the Council consider that this proposal is in keeping with the democratic principles whereby every EU citizen should have the right of access to applicable documents in their own language? What does the Council intend to do to prevent the marginalisation of certain languages in the EU? Does the Council consider that the number of official languages in the EU should be limited with the forthcoming enlargement in view?

Answer (6 July 1998)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the European Patent Organisation (EPO) is not a Community body but an organization set up by intergovernmental agreement. This means both that it is not for the Council to express an opinion on that organization's rules and that the status of Swedish within that organisation has no effect as regards its status within the European Union where its status is governed by the Treaties.

The status of languages within the Union is defined in Regulation No 1 ((OJ 17, 6.10.1958. )), Article 1 of which stipulates that Swedish is one of the eleven official languages and working languages of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/98 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of budget heading B2-5122

1. How many organizations received funding under this budget heading in 1997, and which were they?

2. In how many cases in 1997 was an application for a subsidy granted, and in how many cases was it rejected? What were the commonest reasons for rejection?

3. How much time, on average, elapses between an application for a subsidy and its award? Does the Commission think this is reasonable?

4. Does the Commission agree that improving the provision of information to recipients might improve the implementation of this budget heading? How does the Commission propose to achieve this?

5. Does the Commission agree that the organizations in receipt of subsidies under this budget heading should increasingly become self-financing? If so, how does the Commission propose to achieve this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1998)

A list of the organisations receiving funding from budget heading B2-5122 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Of the applications received, 101 were accepted and 42 rejected. Applications were rejected because the applicant did not appear on the list of organisations in the remarks to the budget heading, because the project did not comply with the guide concerning that heading and because it did not comply with the aims of the heading.

The average time taken to process an application was two to three months. The actual time taken depended on a number of factors: (a) whether the project was complete and included the necessary financial documentation (as specified in the guide); (b) whether the guide had to be sent to the applicant so that a correct application could be lodged; (c) the Commission's internal procedures which require financial checks to be made before a letter awarding a grant can be sent.

To improve the situation, the Commission met some potential recipients early in 1998 to explain the guide for this year and procedures. The guide is also sent to other applicants before they submit their projects.

Since grants from public funds are intended to fulfil a complementary role, the Commission expects each potential beneficiary either to finance the bulk of its activity itself or to find partners to finance part of it. However, in its guide for 1998 the Commission proposes three possible part-financing percentages based on criteria relating to the interest of the activity itself and the organisations' capacities in terms of human and financial resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/98 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: European Parliament elections

Article 8b of the Maastricht Treaty concerning citizenship of the Union stipulates that 'every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that state'.

With a view to the European Parliament elections to be held in October 1999, are there any Member States where residents who are nationals of other Member States are not able to exercise the right to vote?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0525/98 and E-0527/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1998)

Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 has been transposed by all the Member States and was applied at the time of the June 1994 elections. Sweden, Austria and Finland applied it on the occasion of the first European Parliament elections held in their countries in 1995 and 1996.

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission report of 7 January 1998 to Parliament and the Council on the application of the Directive on voting rights of EU citizens living in a Member State of which they are not nationals in European Parliament elections ((COM(97) 731 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/98 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Animal testing ethics committee

Sweden has long required that all animal experimentation be preceded by an examination of its ethical aspects, by animal testing ethics committees on which both the scientific and public interests are represented. At present those committees have an advisory function.

The Swedish Government is now proposing to the Swedish Parliament that the advisory nature of these committees will have to be changed to give them decision-making powers. It claims that this change will be necessary to ensure that Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) may be regarded as having been transposed into Swedish law.

Does the Commission consider that Directive 86/609/EEC requires the Member States to set up regulatory committees on the ethics of animal testing?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1998)

Article 12, paragraph 1 of Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes states that 'Member States shall establish procedures whereby experiments themselves or the details of persons conducting such experiments shall be notified in advance to the authority' and paragraph 2 'Where it is planned to subject an animal to an experiment in which it will, or may, experience severe pain which is likely to be prolonged, that experiment must be specifically declared and justified to, or specifically authorised by, the authority ...'.

Article 24 states that 'This Directive shall not restrict the right of the Member States to apply or adopt stricter measures ... In particular, Member States may require a prior authorisation for experiment or programmes of work notified in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 (1).'

Pursuant to these provisions it is left to the Member States to determine the actual procedures for the notification and authorisation of the experiments. A regulatory committee on the ethics of animal testing could form a part of this procedure.

Ethical aspects on animals experimentation are becoming increasingly important. The Commission is strongly encouraging Member States to set up ethical committees for animal experimentation on a voluntary basis as part of their regular review process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Supersession of national commercial rules on the quality of processed products in the Member States by Community law

At present, the EU Member States operate different rules and regulations on the quality of processed fisheries and aquaculture products placed on the market. Some of these market quality rules - as distinguished from those strictly relating to health and hygiene - are more restrictive in some Member States than in others.

In some cases, the national rules date from before the country concerned joined the Community, which was itself then organised and structured very differently from how it is today.

Can the Commission state whether these national commercial rules on quality may be considered to have been superseded by Community law, especially as they imply discrimination between Member States and hinder or obstruct the marketing and distribution of food products without any justification on health grounds?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The commercial quality of preserved fishery and aquaculture products is largely governed by the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines ((OJ L 212, 22.7.1989. )) and Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 of 9 June 1992 laying down common marketing standards for preserved tuna and bonito ((OJ L 163, 17.6.1992. )).

These provisions are binding in all Member States and invalidate any national standard which would not be in conformity with the above Community legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0184/98 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Carriage of lorries and trailers by rail

There is great scope for saving money and reducing emissions by carrying entire goods vehicles by rail over long distances. Systems have now been developed for carrying lorries, trailers and their loads on special rail trucks. Does the EU give any kind of aid for this type of project? Does the EU have any plans for supporting technical developments in this field?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

The Community pursues an active policy of increasing the competitiveness and efficiency of combined transport. As part of this policy the Commission has been supporting Pilot Actions for Combined Transport since 1992. The PACT programme provides a limited financial grant from the Community for innovations, which improve the competitiveness of international combined transport. Furthermore, the Community provides funding for intermodal research and development activities in the fourth framework programme (Parliament and Council Decision No 1110/94/EC ((OJ L 126, 18.5.1994. ))).

In general, the Commission notes that accompanied combined transport (rolling road), as currently practised, is often considered not to be economically viable on its own. It is conducted for environmental reasons or for reducing congestion on certain axes, especially through mountainous regions. Detailed consideration of this and other features of intermodal transport was given in the 1997 White Paper 'Intermodality and Intermodal Freight transport in the European Union' ((COM(97) 243 final. )).

For the time being, rolling road technology or operations are not funded financially by the Community within the above-mentioned programmes. However, the Commission would welcome relevant technological and economical development in this area in order to help to make the rolling road an economically viable option. If projects aiming at this objective fulfil the criteria of the programmes such as PACT or the specific tasks in the intermodal R& D programmes, they could be eligible for Community funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Infringement by the Commune of Naples of rules relating to the award of public contracts

The Commission has brought an action against Italy for infringement of its obligations in relation to the award of public contracts. In particular, the Commission has recently accused the Commune of Naples in connection with the award of a public service contract for the collection of urban waste. The invitation to tender was incomplete and in flagrant breach of Directive 92/50/EEC on public service contracts. The various blatant breaches and omissions discovered included failure to provide certain compulsory information concerning selection criteria, provisions that discriminated against foreign potential operators, delays in providing contract specifications and the fact that the deadline set for the submission of tenders was shorter than the minimum prescribed by Community rules.

Various articles published in the local press have reported a number of procedural irregularities in connection with the award of another public contract, for the administration of the Commune of Naples' housing stock. That competition was halted by the TAR (regional administrative court) of the Campania region because it laid down excessive and discriminatory criteria which, by failing to ensure fair competition in the tendering procedure, would have had the effect of favouring the current administrator.

Would the Commission, therefore,

- check that the new invitation to tender for the administration of the housing stock finally complies with the requirements for fairness and legality?

- check the regularity of the procedures adopted for all the public contracts administered by the Commune of Naples and, consequently, ascertain whether there have been any violations of the principle of free competition?

- apply to the European Court of Justice to ensure that the Commune of Naples and the Italian State reinstate any legitimate interests that may have been infringed?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/98 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Restriction of imports of apples into the Czech Republic from the EU

Seeing that the Czech Republic decided on 29 January 1998 to impose restrictions on the import of apples from the EU,

this measure is incompatible with the provisions of the Europe Agreement between the EU and the Czech Republic, since it is inconsistent with the 'standstill' clause relating to customs treatment and appears discriminatory because it concerns only imports of apples from the EU,

1. the Commission is asked to state what action is being taken against this discriminatory decision,

2. whether negotiations have already been launched by the appropriate services and,

3. if so, what stage they have currently reached.

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1998)

The Commission is fully informed about the issue and has already been in close contact with the Czech authorities since the first reports about the measure. On 2 February 1998 the Commission explained to the Czech government that its measure was not in conformity with the Europe Agreement. It therefore asked for its immediate withdrawal and for urgent bilateral consultations.

These consultations, which took place on 17 February 1998, made clear that the Czech authorities did not intend to withdraw the measure in the short term. The Commission therefore proposed counter measures which were adopted by the Council on 17 March 1998. The Community will suspend certain agricultural trade concessions (apple juice, meat products, dairy products) which are currently granted to the Czech Republic on an autonomous basis. It aims at reducing Czech preferential exports by an amount which corresponds to the losses which the Community suffers in its apple exports.

The Commission will continue its efforts to resolve the matter in a manner which also safeguards the interests of Community exporters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/98 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (2 April 1998)

Subject: UFO sightings within the European Community

One of my constituents has enquired about Europe's position on Unidentified Flying Objects. In his letter, he reports two witnessed sightings of UFOs in Britain and also in Belgium, both involving military personnel. When he approached national ministers for their response, he felt it inappropriately lax, and this led him to question the foundations of national and European security in these matters. He also implies the possibility of a cover-up which may well be detrimental to European citizens and the notion of security in general.

In light of the above, what measures does the Commission feel are required to ensure that European citizens are reassured as to their security in relation to Unidentified Flying Objects? Indeed, is there any European policy on UFOs or room for elaboration on any existing policy?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1998)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0832/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Application of Cuba to join the group of ACP countries under the Lomé Convention

Can the Commission confirm that Cuba has officially applied to join the group of ACP countries which are signatories to the Lomé Convention?

Is it appropriate that Cuba should wish to join the group of ACP countries signatories to the Lomé Convention, given that two years ago the Commission stated that it was not possible to sign a bilateral cooperation agreement between the European Union and Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1998)

The Commission has been informed that the Cuban government has formally applied for membership of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries (ACP) signatory to the Lomé Convention.

However, the ACP group must first give its opinion on this request. The Lomé Convention partners (ACP and the Community) will then, where appropriate, examine the application jointly in accordance with the objectives and principles laid down in the Convention and with the procedures in force.