ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/97 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Agricultural prices and monetary fluctuations after the introduction of the euro

After the introduction of the single currency in some of the Member States, what will happen to the meaures which compensate for losses caused by monetary fluctuations affecting intra-EU trade in agricultural products?

It is understood that such fluctuations will Longer exist de facto within the euro area. The problem concerns trade between those countries in the euro area and the 'pre-in' countries: will exports of agricultural products from the euro area to the 'pre-ins' still receive this compensation when there are monetary fluctuations outside the euro area?

What is the Commission's opinion on this specific aspect of the consequences of the introduction of the euro on the common agricultural policy?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

Preparations are well advanced for the start of the third stage of economic and monetary union (EMU) on 1 January 1999. In March 1998, in accordance with Article 109j of the EC Treaty, the Commission and the European monetary institute (EMI) will report (the convergence reports) to the Council on the progress made by Member States in the fulfilment of their obligations regarding the achievement of EMU. Having followed the procedure set out in Article 109j, the Council will decide and publish - in May 1998 - the list of Member States that will participate in the third stage of EMU from 1 January 1999. At the same time, the bilateral fixed exchange rates, which will serve as a basis for the determination of euro conversion rates on the starting date of the third stage, will be announced.

At that time, given the significant progress made by Member States in terms of economic convergence, it is envisaged that a large number of Member States will participate in the euro area right from the start. For the same reason, it is also expected that the transition to the third stage of EMU will be relatively smooth.

The Commission is aware of the preoccupations of Member States regarding the impact of the introduction of the euro on agricultural markets. As the Honourable Member acknowledges, the creation of the euro area zone, particularly given the expectation of participation of a large number of Member States, will considerably lessen the importance of the agrimonetary mechanisms in the third stage of EMU. Given that the decision has not yet been made on the list of participants in EMU, it would be premature to present any proposals now for any alterations to the compensation mechanism, which is currently in operation. The Commission will return to this topic once the configuration of Member States participating in EMU is known.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3340/97 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Road accidents in Ireland

1. Can the Commission indicate how many people were injured and killed in road accidents in Ireland in the latest year for which statistics are available, and how these statistics translate into fatalities per million cars registered (a) in Ireland and (b) by comparison with the rest of the EU?

2. What is the estimated economic cost of road deaths in Ireland?

3. What changes are recommended by the Commission in order to reduce the number of deaths and injuries in road accidents?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1997)

In 1994, 404 people were killed in traffic accidents in Ireland and 10 231 were injured. Based on the number killed by million inhabitants over the period 1991-1994, the position of Ireland is worse than the European average, and proportionately worse than that of five other Member States. Clearly, it is difficult to make precise comparisons between Member States as there are a number of factors, such as the quality of infrastructure, which are not comparable. The figures given above are, however, a clear indication of the relative rate of deaths and injuries.

The Commission has calculated that the direct cost of road accidents (including the cost of police and emergency services, vehicle repairs, and lost economic output), is 45 000 MECU per year for the Community as a whole. When divided by the total of 45 000 road fatalities per year, this gives a simple average of 1 MECU per death and associated injuries. In Ireland, the '1 MECU test' would produce a cost for road deaths of about 400 MECU per year.

The Commission has adopted a communication 'Promoting road safety in the EU - The programme for 1997-2001' ((COM(97) 131 final. )) which sets out in detail the Commission's plans to build on the successes of the first action programme which ran from 1993-1996. The Commission's actions will focus on three areas: information gathering and dissemination in order to identify and to monitor the situation and thereby promote focused improvements; initiating and supporting measures to avoid accidents, with an emphasis on the human factor and its interface with environmental features like road and junction design, and traffic signals; and initiating and supporting measures to reduce the consequences of accidents when they occur - by means of achieving further improvements in vehicle design and crash resilience, for example. In addition, the Commission actively advocates cost-free changes in behaviour which would save a large number of lives and reduce the seriousness of injuries. If in Ireland, for instance, front and rear seat belt wearing was at the level of the countries in which it is most usual, reliable estimates put the number of lives that would be saved at 61 every year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3915/97 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Psycho-organic syndrome

In the painting and decorating and carpet sectors in particular and also in car repair businesses and the printing sector harmful solvents are still being used. Use of these solvents can lead to POS (psycho-organic syndrome), an illness which can cause memory loss and chronic fatigue.

1. To what extent is the European Commission aware of the problem of psycho-organic syndrome?

2. Does it consider that the use of harmful solvents must be stopped and that the companies which still use these substances must be required to replace the harmful solvents with non-harmful alternatives?

3. Does it agree that for both environmental and health reasons a European approach to this problem is needed?

4. What does the Commission intend to do and what are the possibilities for taking action against POS at European level?

5. Is it willing to undertake research into the development and consequences of psycho-organic syndrome and to assist the victims of this illness?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

1. The Commission is aware of the use of the term 'organic-psycho-syndrome' (OPS) in certain Member States. OPS is not specifically mentioned in the European schedule of occupational diseases which is annexed to the Commission Recommendation 90/326/EEC concerning the adoption of the above mentioned European schedule ((OJ L 160, 26.6.1990. )). However, Annex I to this Recommendation contains diseases caused by several solvents, such as the homologues of benzene.

2. The Commission believes that in principle every substance should be treated individually and a decision made whether replacement or controlled use with proper information on safety and health is the procedure to be followed.

The new proposal for a Council directive on chemicals ((OJ C 375, 10.12.1997. )) currently undergoing second reading in the Parliament requires that substitution shall be undertaken to avoid the use of a hazardous chemical agent by replacing it with a chemical agent or process less hazardous to workers' safety and health where this is technically possible.

In addition the Honourable Member will be aware of the considerable body of legislation on classification packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations placed on the market which provides information to users on safety and health.

3. This approach is already Commission policy, in relation to all chemicals placed on the market.

4. and 5. The Commission is keeping under review the European schedule of occupational diseases. In 1998 it envisages a study of the data deriving from scientific and technical progress, and based on epidemiological analysis. As part of this review new occupational diseases could be considered.

As far as the question of assistance to victims is concerned this remains the responsibility of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3353/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1997)

Subject: Amsterdam Treaty: Declaration on the quality of the drafting of EU legislation

1. What action does the Commission propose to take to lay down guidelines on the quality of drafting of Community legislation, as it was invited to do by the European Council meeting in Amsterdam?

2. What appropriate organizational measures does the Commission plan to take to ensure that the guidelines are applied?

3. Will its priorities include a review of staff training, the allocation of specific responsibilities to staff in each section to monitor output for plain language, and an examination of the work of the Commission's legal service?

4. When does the Commission expect to complete its initiatives on the quality of drafting of Community legislation, and will it produce a report for the Council and European Parliament on the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

1. The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Declaration 39 on the quality of the drafting of Community legislation, annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty, requests Parliament, the Council and the Commission 'to establish by common accord guidelines for improving the quality of the drafting of Community legislation.'

2. - 4. The reply to these questions will depend on the work referred to above. The Commission recalls that it has already taken a number of measures to improve the quality of legislation in the broad sense. These measures are referred to in the annual report on Better law-making ((Doc. CSE(96) 6007. )). The 1997 report will appear in the next few weeks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Mad cow disease

Mad cow disease - BSE - has, as the Commission knows, been a sensitive issue which has raised strong feelings in the Member States. The European Parliament asked the Commission for a report on BSE and its progression and Mr Böge MEP has drafted a report for the Temporary Committee on BSE which will shortly be debated in Parliament. Now that most of the fuss has died down, a new case of BSE has been found in Belgium. The spread of the disease, the transport and sale of meat originating in another country has made people doubt the principle of freedom of competition. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the spread of BSE is halted?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

The new case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) ascertained in Belgium confirms the need for sustained and, if necessary, increased vigilance in regard to the epizootic on the part of all concerned, starting with the Commission.

Hence the measures to combat BSE already introduced by the Commission will be maintained or adapted and, if necessary, strengthened. These measures mainly concern meat and bone meal for animal feed and veterinary inspection and control. The Commission is also working on a proposal concerning surveillance of TSE.

Other measures have been approved or are about to be adopted. They mainly concern research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), whereby the coordination work between the Member States, as well as funding, will be continued or intensified, and specified risk materials and meal intended for animal consumption, in respect of which the Commission will shortly be tabling new proposals on the control and inspection of the entire production chain. To this end, staff was already increased in 1997 and more will be recruited in 1998. Finally, measures to ensure the traceability of bovines will take effect on 1 January 1998.

Hence, as the Honourable Member can ascertain, the Commission in no way intends to relax its efforts in this area but, on the contrary, intends to reinforce them, not only in order to combat the spread of BSE but also to eradicate the epizootic as rapidly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3574/97 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (4 November 1997)

Subject: Taxation of pension and retirement funds

Does the Commission consider it to be compatible with Community law for the tax legislation of a Member State to provide for discriminatory tax treatment of contributions to pension and retirement funds and gains accruing therefrom according to where the fund is based or where the contract was signed, even though the countries concerned are other Member States? In this light, does the Spanish law on private insurance of 1995 comply with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

In general, the Commission does not consider it to be compatible with Community law for the tax legislation of a Member State to provide for discriminatory tax treatment of contributions to pension and retirement funds and gains accruing therefrom according to where the fund is based or where the contract was signed. However, there may be an objective justification for such discriminatory treatment, as the Court of justice stated in its Bachmann ruling of 28 January 1992 (Case 204/90). In later rulings the Court has further developed the Bachmann doctrine (Wiclockx, 11 August 1995, Case 080/94 and Svensson, 14 November 1995, Case 484/93). Another case is still pending (Jessica Safir, Case 118/96). The compatibility with Community law of each individual Member State's tax rules on pension and retirement funds will have to be judged in the light of these rulings.

As far as the Spanish system regarding the taxation of life insurance is concerned, the Commission has examined whether the law leads to a discriminatory tax treatment on the basis of the place where the assurance company is located. The Spanish authorities have indicated that Article 78(1) of Law 30/95 of 8 November 1995 on the regulation and supervision of private insurance provides that insurance companies established in Member States of the European Economic Area other than Spain which have obtained authorisation to operate in their Member State of origin can carry on their activities in Spain under the right of establishment or under the freedom to provide services. They have also indicated that life assurance premiums paid by Spanish residents to insurance companies which are not established in Spain but are allowed by law to do business there by way of the freedom to provide services can be deducted from personal income tax under the same conditions as premiums paid to insurance companies established in Spain. The Commission has therefore concluded that no discriminatory tax treatment exists in this particular case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/97 by María Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Used tyres

How many used tyres are burned at EU plants? Could the Commission give a breakdown by Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1997)

A study on waste statistics carried out for the Commission shows the following numbers of used tyres were incinerated in the Community in 1995.

>TABLE>

No distinction is made in these figures between those which were incinerated with energy recovery and those incinerated without energy recovery.

The United Kingdom incinerated 102 000 tonnes of used tyres with energy recovery in 1996 ((United Kingdom Industry/Government Scrap Tyre Working Group 2nd Annual Report. )). Official figures are not available to the Commission for Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg or Finland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4188/97 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) and Guido Viceconte (UPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Allocation of slots at Community airports

At some EU airports - in particular those with the worst traffic congestion - a lack of available slots is preventing some carriers from operating in accordance with the rules designed to ensure healthy, balanced competition.

Is the Commission aware of any instances of slot trading?

How does it intend to ensure that slots are allocated on the basis of transparent criteria in accordance with Community competition law?

What means does it have at its disposal to ensure that slots are made available and allocated to the airlines applying for them?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

The Commission is very concerned by the lack of available slots at very congested Community airports. Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports ((OJ L 14, 22.1.1993. )) establishes the rules to be followed by airport co-ordinators in order to ensure a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of slots.

The Commission is monitoring the proper application of the existing Regulation to ensure, in particular, that new entrants benefit from access to congested airports to the extent provided in the Regulation. The Commission has recently become aware of certain practices involving transactions between airlines which raise questions as to their compatibility with the Regulation and has asked for further information from the Member States concerned. The Commission will not hesitate to take action, when justified, in order to ensure a proper enforcement of the Regulation.

The Commission also recognises, however, that the existing Regulation is not a sufficient instrument to respond effectively to the needs of all air carriers. Whilst it ensures fair distribution of the slots which become available, it does not create new possibilities for access to the airports. Moreover, in many cases, an increase in airport capacity will either not be sufficient to resolve the congestion problem, or simply will not happen.

The Commission is therefore preparing a proposal to amend the existing Regulation in order to optimise the use of slots and giving particular consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a fair mechanism in order to facilitate slot movements. Various means of reinforcing the position of new entrants and making the existing Regulation more easily enforceable are also being considered.

The Commission proposal will attempt to offer a balanced package of measures to remedy the situation described by the Honourable Members. Of course, in cases where dominant carriers at congested airports abuse their position, the competition rules of the EC Treaty can always be used as a basis for action.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4079/97 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission (18 December 1997)

Subject: Ground-handling services

The Council decided on 15 October 1996 to adopt Directive 96/67/EC ((OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36.)) on access to the ground-handling market at Community airports. Pursuant to Article 23 of the directive, the deadline for transposing it into national law is no later than one year from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This deadline expired on 26 October 1997. The directive aims to open up ground-handling services to competition after decades of near-monopoly conditions at airports and to allow market access to new suppliers.

Against this background, can the Commission say:

1. Which Member States have transposed the directive into national law, by the deadline or to date?

2. Has it already verified whether the legislation of the Member States which have transposed it is actually in line with the directive's provisions? If so, what was the result? If not, when will it do so?

3. Have the Member States which did not transpose the directive by the deadline informed it when they intend to do so? (Please give dates for each Member State.)

4. What steps is it taking to insist that countries which have not yet done so transpose the directive?

5. After expiry of the deadline, how can the undertakings concerned directly assert their rights under the directive against the countries which have not transposed it?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 February 1998)

The implementation in national law of Directive 96/67/EC on the access to the groundhandling market at Community airports should have been concluded by 25 October 1997. No national legislation was communicated to the Commission in time and, in the absence of communication, letters of formal notice were sent to all Member States on 29 December 1997.

Four Member States (Germany, France, Finland, UK) have now implemented the Directive, while the majority (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Austria) which have not yet implemented the Directive have informed the Commission this is to be done in the first three months of 1998. Responses are awaited from the other Member States.

During the implementation process, the Commission is kept informed on the prospective legal texts and can give its view as to their adequacy and accuracy.

According to the case-law of the Court of justice, undertakings may rely directly on the provisions of a Community directive when a Member State has not implemented the law before the deadline, on the condition that these provisions are clear and unambiguous, unconditional and not dependent on further action by the Community or the national authorities. Moreover, undertakings may - under certain conditions - claim compensation from the Member State for the damage incurred as a consequence of the State's failure to implement a Community directive before the deadline.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Commission communication on tax coordination (COM(97) 495)

At the Ecofin meeting of 13 October 1997, this Commission Communication was debated for the first time. The document proposes a package of measures to tackle what it calls 'harmful tax competition'. The Council called on the Commission to bring forward a new Communication, by 12 November at the latest, taking into account the results of this meeting and of the meeting of the Tax Policy Group of 20 October. Ministers unanimously underlined their intention to reach political agreement on this matter at the Ecofin meeting on 1 December 1997.

With regard to the taxation of capital income, Point 19 III of the Communication states that 'every Member State should either operate a minimum withholding tax or provide information on savings income to other Member States'. Point 19 IV then states that 'the Community should also promote an extension of the agreed solution beyond its borders'.

1. Through what mechanisms and international organizations does the Commission envisage the promotion of the agreed solution?

2. What means will be used within the context of these organizations and mechanisms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3563/97, E-3564/97, E-3565/97, E-3566/97 and E-3567/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member both to its new communication of 5 November 1997 ((COM(97) 564 final. )) and the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting of 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.

Within these conclusions, the Council approved a text on the taxation of savings containing four points that might form the basis for a new proposal for a directive.

As was anticipated by the Commission in its own above mentioned communication, it is the Commission's intention to present such a proposal very quickly, in principle by April 1998.

The Commission considers it premature to comment at the present stage on the sensitive and delicate questions raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is still reflecting and its position will be clearly stated in the proposal for a directive.