ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Recommendation of the Spanish Competition Court on the transition to competition in the electricity industry

As the Commission is well aware, the Spanish Competition Court (TDC) has recommended that the Spanish Government oppose the merger of Unión Fenosa and Hidrocantábrico, Spain's third and fourth largest electricity supply companies. In its report the TDC takes the view that there is no real competition on the Spanish electricity generation market, given that the controlling closed oligopoly is highly likely to remain in existence for a long time to come.

In what way will the Commission take into account the opinion of the Spanish guardian of competition when it assesses how competition on the above-mentioned market is being affected by CTCs (costs of transition to competition), which are currently being studied pursuant to Article 87 of the Treaty?

Will it take the opposite view to the Spanish Competition Court, namely that the prevailing situation corresponds de facto to a transition to competition tending to justify the CTCs?

How does the Commission think that competition and Spanish consumers might be helped by the PTA 1 300 000 000 000 granted to four companies forming part of a closed oligopoly in which there is a distinct lack of actual or potential competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

In accordance with the rules of the EC Treaty on state aid and policy in this area, the Commission assesses the compatibility of national measures with the common market on the basis of all the information in its possession, whether or not provided by the national authorities. Naturally, the Commission is responsible for its final decision.

As the Commission has not yet adopted its decision on the question of transition-to-competition costs on the Spanish electricity market, it is too early to say whether it will be the same as the opinion of the Spanish Competition Court. The Commission would, however, point out that the Court's opinion was delivered from the standpoint of national merger control whereas its own decision will be based on the control of state aid. Consequently, the Commission will take account of such factors as the liberalisation of the electricity market following the entry into force of Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1), since these are relevant to an analysis of the costs of transition to competition.

The Commission also believes it would be premature to answer the third question raised by the Honourable Member until it has adopted its final decision on the case. This decision will obviously state the reasons on which it is based.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified organisms

What plans does the Commission have to introduce measures to ensure that European citizens are properly informed of those genetically modified varieties which are undergoing tests and trials in each Member State, for the purpose of deciding whether to enter such varieties onto national catalogues pursuant to Directive 70/457/EEC(1)?

(1) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The publication of information concerning genetically modified organisms undergoing trials in accordance with Community seed legislation is a matter falling within the responsibility of the Member States, which are also responsible for the official acceptance of plant varieties under Council Directive 70/457/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species(1) and their listing on the national catalogues of varieties.

As set out in point 75 of the annex to the white paper on food safety(2), the Commission will bring forward a proposal concerning specific conditions for the environmental risk assessment in respect of genetically modified plant varieties, which will be equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(3) as revised. In this context, it will be giving consideration to measures of public information on tests and trials on plant material of genetically modified varieties.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970.

(2) COM(1999) 719 final.

(3) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1766/00

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: VAT in Poland

Is the Commission aware that VAT is imposed on advertising by German firms in Poland at the rate of 22 % and that the firms concerned cannot offset the taxes they have paid?

What are its views on the fact that foreign firms that have established branches in Poland which arrange advertising for them are able to offset such taxes?

What steps will it take during the accession negotiations to encourage Poland to grant foreign advertisers equal treatment for tax purposes?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission is well aware that at present Poland only grants a refund of input VAT to taxable persons registered within the country and accounting for VAT. This implies that foreign taxable persons, including taxable persons from Member States, not registered for VAT in Poland, are unable to reclaim the input VAT incurred on taxable transactions carried out in Poland within the framework of their economic activity.

Under the Community acquis the provisions of the Eighth VAT Directive, Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979, on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country(1) and the Thirteenth VAT Directive, Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986(2), provide for refund of VAT to taxable persons not registered in the territory of the Member State, but in another Member State or in a third country respectively. It has to be noted that Member States may make refund of VAT to taxable persons established outside the Community conditional on reciprocity, which is an option some Member States, including Germany, are applying.

As the above two Directives are part of the Community acquis in the field of VAT, Poland will have to implement them at the latest when it becomes a Member State of the Union. In the accession negotiations, Poland has committed itself to introduce the refund of Polish VAT to taxable persons established outside the territory of Poland in 2001.

(1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.

(2) OJ L 326, 21.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Proposals are made for creating a general framework in areas where no specific harmonised rules are applicable (and where mutual recognition currently applies).

Will the Commission propose new horizontal legislation? If not, is existing legislation satisfactory for mutual recognition of products, despite the intensive and time-consuming procedures?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Marketing of grape juices (DG Competition)

At present there are no legal Community limits on the percentages of natural glycerol which may be contained in grape juices.

The only limit (Regulation (EC) No 822/87(1)) concerns the presence of alcohol in the finished product.

According to a private German institution, GFL (the Berlin-based Gesellschaft für Lebensmittelforschung mbH), however, grape juices produced in Italy contain a percentage of glycerol which is above permitted levels.

The GFL allegations constitute a non-tariff barrier to freedom of trade within the EU and patently conflict with the principles of the single market.

Given the above, does the Commission not intend to take immediate action to ensure that Italian-produced grape juices are not effectively barred from the German market?

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Production and marketing requirements for fruit juices and certain similar products are set by Council Directive 93/77/EEC of 21 September 1993(1), Article 1 of which defines fruit juice and fruit. No maximum limit is set for glycerol in grape juice nor is its addition to fruit juices authorised.

The remarks of the private German organisation have no official or regulatory force as far as conformity of grape juice with Community marketing rules is concerned.

The German authorities have not notified the Commission of any restriction or ban on marketing of Italian grape juice and the Commission has accordingly contacted them to seek clarification. It will not fail to take any appropriate action under Article 226 (formerly 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 244, 30.9.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1089/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Further questions on the promise of financial aid to Kosovo

On 13 March 2000, Commissioner Patten attempted to reply to my question P-2280/99(1). The answers did not relate to the questions I had put.

The question was not whether the Commission had drawn up estimates or proposals for making funds available for Kosovo. It was whether 500 million had been promised on behalf of the Union. This question was not answered, despite the fact that the Treaty required the Commission to answer it.

Hence the following questions:

1. Has a promise been made on behalf of the European Union to provide approximately half of the funds needed for Kosovo, amounting to some 500 to 700 million?

2. If not, how was it possible for Mrs Schreyer to claim on 9 November 1999 that this was the case?

3. If so:

(a) which representatives have made such promises?

(b) on what occasion?

(c) what sums have been promised?

(d) were the representatives authorised to make such promises?

(e) were the promises made subject to Parliament's approval having to be obtained for the sums involved?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

As already indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-2280/99(1), following the conclusions of the European Council of Cologne (June 1999), the Commission estimated between 500 million and 700 million per year over three years 2000-2002, the indicative needs for the reconstruction effort in Kosovo in the perspective of a medium term reconstruction and recovery programme.

This figure was indicated for the first time in its proposal for the creation of the European agency for reconstruction(2), submitted in the context of a proposal for the modification of the Obnova Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 851/98 of 20 April 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(3)).

The Commissioner responsible for External relations did not make any commitment but expressed the Commission's willingness actively to support the programme for the reconstruction of Kosovo during the second donors' conference jointly organised by the Commission and the World Bank in November 1999. On this occasion, the Commission pledged an indicative amount of 500 million for Community assistance. As this figure was in line with the first reading of the draft 2000 budget and was pledged on condition of its final adoption by the budgetary authorities, the Commission did not consider it necessary to have a mandate in this respect.

A global amount of 360 million for 2000 was finally agreed by the budgetary authorities on 16 December 1999. The Commission has now confirmed this amount to the international donor community as the final figure committed for Kosovo in year 2000.

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 2.

(2) OJ C 21 E, 25.1.2000.

(3) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2070/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Textile and lace fabric in the EU and Turkey

Does the European Union invest significantly in Turkish textiles if so, is this at the expense of the textile industries in other Member States? Does the EU foresee a further increase in the budget allocated to investment in the textile industry in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

No investment in the Turkish textile industry is financed from the Community budget.

A proposal for a Council regulation regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey(1) is currently being discussed between Council and Parliament. A common position was adopted by the Council on 14 June 2000. The draft regulation provides, amongst other things, assistance for the modernisation of Turkish industry.

On specific actions concerning the Turkish textile industry, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to Written Question E-1921/00 by Mr Clegg(2).

(1) OJ C 408, 29.12.1998.

(2) JO C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 149.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Council

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Banning of political parties

My attention has been drawn to the draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 17 is headed Freedom of Assembly and Association, and speaks of the right to peaceful assembly, including the right to form and to join trade unions or political parties.

My Party supports all of that Article, believing that in any society there must be the strongest possible guarantees of the right to peaceful assembly, the right to form and join trade unions, and the right to form political parties.

Yet the European Parliament recently approved proposals to be discussed at the Inter-governmental Conference later this year, to take powers to ban political parties, like Jörg Haider's Freedom Party in Austria. Please inform me how the European Union can consider banning any political party when to do so would be a fundamental breach of the proposed Article 17 of the proposed European Charter?

Will the Council of Ministers now drop any proposals to ban political parties in the European Union?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The question put by the Honourable Member has never been discussed by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Freedom of the press in Russia

Does the Council believe that the search carried out by the FSB (the former KGB) in the offices of the independent MediaMost Press Group is an indication of a new climate, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and some years after the abolition of Communism in Russia?

Is the Council concerned about this attack on the freedom of the press and on MediaMost and its television station, NTV, whose President, Vladimir Goussinsky, is also an important figure in the Russian Jewish Community?

Will the Council ask the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to ensure freedom of expression and to denounce such practices, unacceptable in a state based on the rule of law, is a member of the Council of Europe and which hopes, one day, to join the European Union?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council noted with concern the search carried out by the FSB in the offices of the MediaMost Press Group. It has repeatedly stressed to the Russian authorities, notably at the EU-Russia Summit on 29 May, that freedom and independence of the media are an essential component of any democratic, free and open society. Respect for fundamental democratic principles is a cornerstone of the partnership between the EU and Russia and an essential element of the PCA.

Support for consolidation of Russian public institutions, particularly its executive, legislative and judicial bodies in accordance with democratic principles is among the principal objectives of the EU's Common Strategy on Russia. The Council will continue supporting democratic reforms in Russia and closely following developments in this area, with particular attention to the freedom of the media.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/00

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Competition

Would the Commission agree that Subsection

4, Article 38, The Principle of Unity of Exploitation of the Tourism Planning Law for the Canaries, is clearly anti-competitive in view of the following:

1. In the establishments providing accommodation, the undertaking of tourist activity must be carried out in accordance with the Principle of Unity of Exploitation.

2. For the purposes of this Law, the term Unity of Exploitation will be understood as the need to accept one single nominative company per complex as far as tourist exploitation is concerned.

(The law, in effect prohibits individual owners from determining the cost of renting their accommodation and, furthermore, penalises those owners who wish to use the property for personal use).

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to a piece of the Canary Islands legislation; the Commission understands that the law in question is that of 6 April 1995, No 7/1995, concerning some rules for tourism services in the Canaries. The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission agrees that a particular provision is clearly anti-competitive. This provision requires, in substance, that there is one management and some common standards for renting out to tourists the apartments in one complex. The purpose appears to be to ensure the good quality of the service to the tourists. The pricing, however, as well as other such commercial aspects seem to remain outside the scope of co-ordination.

The Community competition rules (Articles 81 and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty) concern the elimination of agreements between undertakings which restrict competition (e.g. price-fixing agreements between competitors) and of abuses of a dominant position. The application of Article 10 (ex Article 5) or, in case of public undertakings and undertakings with exclusive rights, of Article 86 (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty, in combination with one of the former articles, allows the Commission to intervene even in cases where a Member State imposes or encourages such behaviour. It however needs to be remembered that the Community competition rules can be applicable only if the alleged restriction is capable of producing an appreciable effect on trade between Member States.

While the Commission is willing to examine any complaint brought to its attention, it is unable, in the absence of any further detail, to share the view of the Honourable Member that the provision referred to is clearly contrary to the Community competition rules. It rather seems, on the basis of the information available, that the law is not liable to induce any anti-competitive behaviour that would constitute a violation of the Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/00

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: European Parliament resolution of 15 April 1999 on the report from the Commission on Slovenia's progress towards accession (1998)

In its Declaration and Recommendation (of 18.3.1999), the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee called on the Government of Slovenia to repeal those laws and decrees from 1945 and 1946 relating to expatration of individual ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia which still remained in force.

Has the Commission held talks with the Government of the Republic of Slovenia about these laws and decrees? How will the Commission take account of this call from the European Parliament in connection with the accession negotiations?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0697/00 and E-0698/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The Commission has assessed in its opinion on Slovenia's application for membership of the Union of June 1997 that Slovenia meets the political criteria laid down in Copenhagen and that Slovenia has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

Slovenia has undertaken to fulfil the criteria with respect to the rule of law and adherence to human rights principles. However, the AVNOJ decisions were adopted and implemented before the founding of the Communities and are remnants of the legislation of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. The process of restitution of property continues.

The Commission is aware of the fact that the process of property restitution is very slow in Slovenia. It follows this process in the context of its bilateral relations with Slovenia. However, the Commission cannot intervene directly in this question. Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty states explicitly that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership.