ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/99

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Tax on the employment of foreign nationals

Is the Commission aware that in the world of German theatre, a tax on the employment of foreign nationals appears to be paid at a rate of 20 %. Can the Commission confirm that this is the case and does it accept that such practice is therefore discriminatory against other EU citizens within the Federal Republic of Germany?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
As far as the European Economic Area is concerned, the French Government, by way of a declaration
annexed to the Final Act of the protocol, noted that the Agreement on the European Economic Area doesnot apply to overseas countries and territories associated to the European Economic Community pursuantto the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (
5).
(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 114.
(2) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997.
(3) Although Article 183(5) of the EC Treaty mentions only the right of establishment, Article 232 of the aforesaid
Council Decision refers to the arrangements applicable to establishment and provision of services. See also Article233b of the same Council Decision concerning the recognition of professional qualifications.
(
4) According to Article 5(1) of the Act of Accession of Danemark to the Schengen Convention, this Convention does
not apply to Greenland. However, according to Article 5(2) of the same Act, people travelling between Greenland
and Schengen countries (or Iceland and Norway) are not controlled at the frontiers.
(5) See Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area  Final Act  Joint Declaration  Agreed
Minutes  Declaration by the Governement of France, OJ L 1, 3.1.1994.
(2000/C 27 E/019) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0506/99
by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission
(8 March 1999)
Subject: Sixth value added tax directive/Austria
During the accession negotiations Austria was granted a derogation with respect to the application of the
sixth value added tax directive. This enabled it to charge tax on the renting of land for residential purposesat a reduced rate until 31 December 1998.
The Commission is asked in this context:
1. Did the Federal Austrian Government apply for an extension of the derogation referred to above?2. If so, when was the application made, and what action was taken by the Commission?3. If not, what implications does the passing of this deadline have for the applicable tax rate?4. Can it give any accurate information on the rate of tax on the renting of land for residential purposes
that has applied since 1 January 1999?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(26 April 1999)
1. and 2. The Austrian government did not apply for an extension of the derogation allowing it to
apply a reduced rate of tax on the letting or leasing of property for residential use until 31 December1998.
3. and 4. Since 1 January Austria has been obliged to apply the common VAT system to the letting or
leasing of property for residential use. In principle, this means that it has to exempt the letting or leasingof such property from VAT under Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes  Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (
1). It may, however, allow taxpayers to opt for
taxation of such transactions (Article 13C(a) of the Directive). Should they do so, they must apply thenormal rate of VAT.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.C 27 E/18 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0103/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(22 January 1999)

Subject: Obligation to go before the International Court of Justice for the peaceful resolution of disputes under the 1995 New York Convention on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

In her reply to my Oral Question H-1189/98(1) at the plenary sitting of 12 January 1999, Commissioner Emma Bonino stated that EU ratification of the 1995 New York Convention on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks would mean that the compulsory dispute-settlement procedure established in that Convention "would clearly prevent Canada from withdrawing from the Court's jurisdiction as it did in 1994/5".

On what legal precepts does the Commission base its view that Canada would be obliged to go before the International Court of Justice to resolve a dispute arising between the EU and Canada within the framework of that Convention once both were party to the 1995 New York Convention and once that Convention had entered into force?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

The concept of compulsory and binding dispute settlement has indeed become a cornerstone of the 1995 United Nations agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. This very concept is enshrined in part IX and more particularly in the provisions of article 30 of the agreement, which refer back to the provisions relating to the settlement of disputes set out in part XV of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea.

In this context, compulsory and binding dispute settlement means that, for international disputes arising within the purview of these legal instruments, states remain free to choose the means to settle such disputes, but that the chosen procedure must ultimately entail a binding decision for the parties to the dispute. Under this system, there is, in principle, no room for reservations and exclusions and, therefore, this contrasts with a system of optional jurisdiction over legal disputes such as that laid down in article 36 of the statute of the International court of justice.

It is clear that compulsory and binding dispute settlement under the 1995 agreement will not become available until this agreement has entered into force, and only for those states which have actually ratified it.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Update on the central dairy in Rome

Various questions have been asked about the conformity of the procedure for the privatization of the central dairy in Rome. Having regard to the answer given by Commissioner Fischler to Written Question E-3408/97(1), in which he referred to a complaint about the grant of public funds for the restructuring of the central dairy, can the Commission say what has happened since then in relation to the complaint and what steps it intends to take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

Following the initiation of the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the grant of public funds by the municipality of Rome for the operation and privatisation of the Centrale del Latte di Roma, the Commission hopes soon to be in a position to adopt a final decision on the matter.

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 103.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Privatisation and monopoly in the dairy sector

The company Parmalat has recently acquired a series of Italian companies operating in the dairy sector, ranging from Polenghi to the Rome milk depot in Italy, and has begun a policy of expansion abroad, particularly in Brazil. These acquisitions have led to an increase in the company's level of debt and a de facto monopoly in the milk sector.

Since the Commission rightly intervened at the time of the first sale of the Rome milk depot, which it considered to be an instance of state aid, will it say whether it now intends to intervene in order to stop an acquisition that will create a monopoly, or at the very least a dominant position, in the dairy sector which will be contrary to the interests of consumers and the principle of free competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

Under the Merger Regulation(1) the Commission has sole competence for all concentrations, i.e. mergers, acquisitions and full function joint ventures, which have Community dimension, that is, involving enterprises whose turnover meets the thresholds prescribed in the Merger Regulation. Below these thresholds Member States may apply their own merger laws.

All concentrations to which the Merger Regulation applies must be notified to the Commission before they are put into effect.

The Commission investigates all notified concentrations to assess whether or not they will create or strengthen a dominant position which significantly impedes competition in the common market or a substantial part of it. According to the result of this investigation, the Commission adopts a decision on the compatibility or incompatibility of the concentrations with the common market.

As regards the acquisitions by the undertaking Parmalat mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has so far not received any notification thereof. Indeed, these acquisitions would have no Community dimension, and the Commission is aware that the Italian competition authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) is carrying out investigation procedures on them. In particular, the authority has already decided to close the procedure on the acquisition of the Rome milk depot, while as regards Polenghi the examination is still pending.

The Commission suggests the Honourable Member could address a similar question to the Italian competition authority.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; corrected version OJ L 257, 21.9.1990; as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 180, 9.7.1997; corrigendum in OJ L 40, 13.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: The Tibetan Antelope - extinction and fur trade

The Tibetan Antelope has been included on the list of species for which trade is strictly forbidden under CITES since 1979, as it is under threat of extinction.

Despite this ban, the animal's fur, known as Shahtoosh, became very popular in the 1980s and is, according to Friends of Nature, available for sale in a number of markets throughout the European Union, including London.

Given this situation, and the fact that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has pledged to raise this issue with the relevant UK and European Union authorities, what action has the Commission taken to put an end to this trade, being a clear breach of the CITES ban?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 1999)

The Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), is strictly implemented in the Community with Council Regulation (EC) 338/97(1) and Commission Regulation (EC) 939/97(2).

Shawls containing the hair of the Tibetan antelope have indeed been on sale within Europe despite a total ban on imports and sale under the regulations concerned. The Commission is not aware of this being a recent problem but will raise the matter again in the committee on wild fauna and flora established with the above Council Regulation and will urge Member States to take the necessary measures to avoid this kind of trade taking place.

(1) OJ 61 of 3.3.1997.

(2) OJ 140 of 30.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Octopus programme

The Commission and the Council of Ministers of the European Union have launched the Octopus II programme and allocated EUR 2,4 million to it. Its purpose is to combat fraud in the countries of central and eastern Europe (the CEECs).

Would the Commission answer the following questions concerning the programme:

1. What concrete results and successes in terms of combatting fraud were achieved by the Octopus I programme?

2. Was a report drawn up on the implementation of the programme, and if so, could it be forwarded to me?

3. What concrete instances of fraud is the Commission aware of that would make such an extensive fraud-busting programme necessary and justifiable?

4. What is the Commission's estimate of the number of cases of fraud or the level of economic damage sustained as a result of corruption and fraud?

5. Have irregularities or fraud occurred in the countries due to receive support in connection with EU aid also? If so, would the Commission give details?

6. Does fraud in the CEECs mainly concern any particular area?

7. What measures have the CEECs themselves taken to combat corruption in their own countries?

8. Who conducts the seminars and workshops for the CEECs' administrative authorities, and what qualifications do the trainers possess?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 1999)

1. A number of recommendations for tackling organised crime and corruption in the countries of Eastern Europe in transition were drafted under the Octopus I project. It is up to the sovereign states concerned to give effect to these recommendations, with support from the Octopus II project.

2. Reports on the results of the Octopus I programme were drafted on a country-by-country basis and are available from the Commission or the Council.

3. and 4. Octopus I and II are not fraud-busting programmes; they are intended to provide backing for legislative and institutional reforms to combat organised crime and corruption.

5. and 6. Regarding the increase in Community financial flows to the countries covered by the programme and the possibility of irregularities, we would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the Commission anti-fraud programme for 1998/99, which has a section devoted to protection of European financial interests in the context of enlargement and cooperation with non-member countries. The Commission has set up an operational "external measures" unit within its task force for coordination of fraud prevention.

7. The Central and Eastern European countries are gradually reforming their laws and institutions to tackle organised crime and corruption, with the applicant countries taking over the acquis of the EU and its Member States.

8. Seminars and workshops on the transfer and implementation of the acquis are conducted by representatives of the Member States' administrative and judicial authorities who work in the fields in question. Acts of the Council are also presented by the experts who were instrumental in drafting them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/99

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Import of wild birds

Following the Jackson report in 1991 calling for a ban on imports of wild birds (A3-0212/91), and bearing in mind the continuing species depletion, especially of some tropical birds, there is a growing feeling that the provisions laid down in the Regulation on possession of and trade in specimens of species of wild fauna and flora are inadequate to stop this cruel trade.

What further action does the Commission propose?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

All the necessary provisions for trade and transport of wild animals and plant species including import restrictions where necessary are contained in Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and Commission Regulation (EC) no 939 of 26 May 1997 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 338/97(1). The texts of these regulations are the result of several years of detailed discussions involving the Commission, Council and Parliament with the objective of improving the situation for the benefit of the conservation of the species concerned - not just birds.

The Commission's objective is a full and proper implementation of these regulations in the Community, including a dialogue with developing countries on the conservation status of the species affected.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.OJ L 140, 30.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/99

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Swindling of retired people in connection with the introduction of the euro

The introduction of the euro is providing cause for concern for some sectors of the population which lack information on the single currency. Specifically, the city of Barcelona and its industrial areas are seeing a large number of cases where elderly people are being deceived by swindlers posing as bank staff. These criminals are offering to exchange the national currency held by elderly people for the new European notes, which do not yet exist.

Bearing in mind the recommendations made by Parliament in adopting report A4-0415/97(1) at the end of 1997, in which it urged the Commission to pay particular attention to the elderly as a sector of the population, conducting information campaigns which should not be reduced to mere publicity-type campaigning but should be extended to the main aspects of economic life which involve the use of money by groups vulnerable to fraud and abuse, and bearing in mind that, in that report, Parliament called for additional consumer-protection measures to be introduced at European level, has the Commission taken any initiative to provide information on the introduction of the euro to those people who are most vulnerable to fraud and abuse?

Has the Commission drawn up any specific campaigns geared to various sections of the population such as the elderly?

What further measures does the Commission intend to introduce at European level to protect consumers as recommended by Parliament in the above report?

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.1998, p. 38.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0252/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Slate dumps in San Pedro de Trones (Castilla y León, Spain)

The area of San Pedro de Trones (León) is being threatened by the effects of a large number of slate dumps. Some are as high as 100 metres and contain many cracks, causing fears that they may fall on the village.

This situation has led to serious environmental damage preventing the areas concerned from developing any profitable economic activity such as tourism.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission know whether this slate-mining activity is in breach of any of the following directives:

(a) Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and on wild fauna and flora;

(b) Directive 85/337/EEC(2) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

(c) Directive 87/216/EEC(3) on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities?

Does the Commission not consider that there is an urgent need for the competent authorities to set reasonable limits on the volume and size of these dumps? Have limits of this kind been laid down in any directive?

Will the Commission urge the competent authorities to draw up a technical study as a matter of urgency on each of the dumps existing in the neighbourhood of San Pedro de Trones, so that a specific plan can be drawn up for each of them, taking steps to stabilise and subsequently make safe any which pose a serious risk to the area?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

The Commission had not been informed of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member. The question does not state the origin of the slate dumps, and the Commission will obtain details of this problem from the Spanish authorities.

At first sight Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment does not seem to apply. Likewise Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances(4), which replaced other earlier sets of rules, seems not to apply in that the dumps do not appear to have been produced by a specific industrial activity. Nor does the Honourable Member mention the existence of a natural habitat close to this area. This would mean that Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora of 21 May 1992 could not apply.

Under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1995 on waste(5), Member States shall prohibit the unauthorised dumping of waste. Moreover, they must take any action needed in order to ensure that waste is processed and disposed of without any risk to both human beings and the environment.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 85, 28.3.1987, p. 36.

(4) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(5) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/99

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

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Traditionally made ice cream

Regulation (EEC) 2082/92(1) was adopted in order to protect specific and traditional recipes defined in accordance with a set of conditions.

Article 13 makes provision for two types of protection: "partial" protection (Article 13(1)) and "total" protection (Article 13(2)).

How many products have been granted the partial protection referred to in Article 13(1)?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0394/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Funding of measures under 3rd CSF for programmes to restructure citrus fruit growing

The citrus fruit sector in Greece is facing severe problems as a result of both EU policy (GATT agreements, preferential agreements with third countries) and the international economic situation. Resolving these problems calls for restructuring and support for the citrus fruit processing industry in order to modernise and diversify, e.g. into the production and standardisation of natural juices.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Could measures to restructure citrus fruit growing and its processing industry be incorporated into the operational programmes financed by the Structural funds?

2. What steps will the Commission take to include such measures in the 3rd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

1. This is in theory possible, but, given the advanced state of the current Structural Funds programming period, there is not sufficient margin available in the 1994-99 Community Support Framework (CSF), in terms of either funds or time, to initiate new structural measures in support of the citrus fruit sector.

2. It is up to the authorities in the Member State in question to determine their priorities and include them in their draft regional development plans and operational programmes. The Commission will examine them in line with the provisions to be adopted for the third period, 2000-06.