ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0794/00

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Vehicle registration tax

Given the current anomaly in Ireland where VRT can amount to 25 % of the Open Market Selling Price (OMSP) of a new car, and given that consumers throughout Europe pay VAT on the purchase of a new car, will the Commission consider taking some action against Ireland for what appears to be the imposition of double taxation on Irish car buyers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that under Community law as it stands the Member States may impose taxes other than VAT on vehicles. Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive itself (77/388/EEC)(1) expressly provides for this possibility:

Without prejudice to other Community provisions, (mldr) the provisions of this Directive shall not prevent a Member State from maintaining or introducing (mldr) any taxes, duties or charges which cannot be characterised as turnover taxes, provided however that those taxes, duties or charges do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.

The tax to which the Honourable Member refers is not similar to VAT and does not give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.

It should, however, be pointed out that while the Member States are free to impose taxes on cars, they should nonetheless obey the established legal principle requiring them to take into account the depreciation of second-hand vehicles originating in other Member States when applying the tax. Moreover, under Directive 83/183/CEE on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals(2), cars registered in a Member State following a move from another Member State must be exempted from all consumption taxes.

The Commission is currently preparing a study assessing the scale of distortion of the internal market caused by the lack of harmonisation of taxes on vehicles across the Community. The Commission also intends to launch a discussion with the administrations of the Member States and other Community institutions this year on future options for Community action on vehicle taxation.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0346/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Competence in connection with the economic agreement drawn up by the Spanish government's representatives in the Basque Country

On 18 January the Spanish Government reached an agreement with the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country on the economic and tax agreement drawn up by the central government representatives in that region. Furthermore, this agreement has the approval of the bordering autonomous communities.

Will the Commission continue with infringement proceedings against the central government's representatives despite the fact that the supposedly adversely affected autonomous communities have approved the agreement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission opened proceedings under Article 88(2) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty against tax measures in the form of tax holidays and tax relief introduced by the Basque provinces, not on account of complaints brought by the neighbouring autonomous communities but of doubts regarding their compatibility with the common market in the light of Article 87 (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty. The fact that the neighbouring communities have approved the agreement does not affect the proceedings initiated in the interests of competitors of the firms in receipt of aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Copyright directive

In its answer to question H-0691/99(1), the Commission said that it feared that a more limited drafting of Article 5.1 of the Directive on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Information Society could jeopardise the proper functioning of the networks.

In the meantime, the Council has adopted a political agreement on the proposed e-commerce Directive, which contains rules exempting intermediaries from liability for content transmitted and hosted on their networks. including copyright content.

Can the Commission explain why it still needs a wide exception to copyright for internet intermediaries under Article 5.1, knowing that this exception could conflict with some of the provisions of the e-commerce Directive, in particular regarding caching?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The exception enshrined in article 5(1) of the proposal for a directive on copyright and related rights in the information society(1) for certain technical acts of temporary copying made on the networks is a necessary consequence of the comprehensive definition of the reproduction right, as set out in article 2 of the same proposal. It provides service and access providers with legal certainty for their activities as it exempts, where appropriate, certain acts of copying from the scope of the reproduction right. In the Commission's view, the exceptions and limitations to the rights under article 5 of the proposal, as amended by the Commission(2), are not overly wide in scope but ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of rightholders and the legitimate interests of other groups involved (telecommunication operators, users, consumers, and others).

The need for such an exception has not diminished with the adoption of a common position on the proposal for a directive on electronic commerce(3), as the latter instrument does not harmonise copyright protection on substance but rather, as regards copyright infringements and others, addresses certain aspects of liability for activities in the network environment.

The Commission has drafted and negotiated both internal market initiatives in parallel taking due account of each other as the two initiatives are complementary in aiming to ensure a coherent and appropriate internal market framework for the information society.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(2) OJ C 180, 25.6.1999.

(3) OJ C 169, 16.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/00

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Financial support for infrastructure in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe quality of projects

Given that the European Union provides considerable economic support to the applicant countries in Central and Eastern Europe in order to improve the level and quality of their infrastructure in preparation for an enlarged single market (Phare programme, Ispa instrument), will the Commission draw up technical recommendations to be taken into account in infrastructure projects for which funding is provided so as to ensure a level of quality which will guarantee interoperability between those networks and Union networks?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

Assistance under the Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) is available for transport infrastructure projects that also promote sustainable mobility, as well as for environment measures. Energy and telecommunications projects can be financed through PHARE.

Transport projects eligible for support from ISPA will enable beneficiary countries to comply with the acquis that exists in this sector. ISPA will also contribute to achieving the objectives of the accession partnerships as well as to the interconnection and interoperability of national transport networks and the construction of the Trans-European transport networks together with access to these networks.

The Commission has drawn up a reference framework for the funding of transport infrastructure under ISPA. This document, which was examined by the ISPA management committee in December 1999, sets out conditions determining the eligibility of projects for funding under ISPA. All modes of transport are eligible for assistance, although railway transport will be favoured on the grounds of encouraging sustainable mobility. Priority will be given to projects to improve interconnection and interoperability. Assistance for the technical preparation of projects for assistance is available in an effort to improve quality.

In the telecommunications sector, candidate countries are required to adopt the acquis which includes the relevant European and international standards. The Phare multi-country programmes have provided training in this area. Community policy in this field is to encourage private capital participation in the development of the sector such as the international financial institutions and commercial banks. The risks to investors are reduced by the insistence on the adoption of the stable regulatory framework defined in the acquis. Interoperability with and between candidate countries has largely been achieved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1532/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999(1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called for the structure and role of the European Family Policy Observatory operating under the aegis of the Commission's directorate-general for employment and social affairs to be strengthened, for it to submit an annual report to the European Parliament and for it to continue to draw up an inventory of legislation and policies affecting children in the Member States.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999(1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called on the Commission to present an assessment of the application of Council Directive 94/33/EC(2) on the protection of young people at work.

Could the Commission state, in particular, its assessment of the transposition of that directive in the fifteen Member States?

With regard to France, could the Commission state whether it regards as adequate the transposition measures notified to it by that country?

Finally, does the Commission intend to present in the near future a proposal for legislation to supplement that directive?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

(2) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1126/00

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.

The existing Scientific Committees have a fairly heavy work load and they have drawn attention to the time required for their advisory activities (section 22 ff.). The Food Authority will have to take account of this problem. Recruiting sufficiently well-qualified staff to the Authority can help enhance and speed up the process of providing scientific advice.

1. How will the Commission bridge the period pending the creation, and commencement of activities, of the Authority?

2. How will the Commission handle the division of labour between the staff of the Authority and the advisory committees?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0537/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: European standards for emissions and residues from incinerators

Could the Commission state what public health and environmental protection standards exist, in the European Union, in respect of emissions of waste substances or other residues from incinerators?

Answer given by Mme Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

In June 1989 two directives were adopted to control the emissions of certain pollutants from municipal waste incineration plants: Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants(2).

These directives have made a considerable contribution to the reduction of emissions of pollutants in the Community. However, their scope is restricted to municipal waste while incineration is increasingly used as a means of treatment for other wastes, such as sewage sludge, clinical waste and tyres.

In 1994 Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste(3) was adopted. This introduces conditions for the operation of plants for incinerating the most hazardous wastes. It imposes more stringent standards for emissions than the 1989 directives for municipal waste incineration and introduces numerical emission limits for dioxins and furans.

In future, all three directives will be repealed and replaced by a single directive, which sets emission limit values for all relevant pollutants. The Council adopted a common position on the future directive on incineration on 25 November 1999(4). The second reading will take place in March 2000 and the final adoption is expected for autumn 2000. The proposed emission limit values will become applicable to existing plants five years after the adoption of the directive, that is to say probably in autumn 2005.

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.

(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(4) OJ C 25, 28.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1374/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2000)

Subject: Confidentiality of the data contained in the file relating to the state aid made available to the Spanish electricity sector

In reply to numerous questions which I and other MEPs have tabled regarding certain details of the file relating to the state aid to be granted to the ATCs of Spanish electricity companies, the Commission has said that the file contains data which are confidential and which cannot therefore be communicated either to the European Parliament or to the consumers' association which is named in the file. The 17 April 2000 edition of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo y Expansión contains an article concerning the existence of a technical report which endorses the ATCs and from which that article even quotes paragraphs.

It seems strange that the press should be acquainted with internal Commission reports to which MEPs are denied access, but it is even stranger that the substance of a report which endorses the ATCs cannot be contradicted even though, if the report reaches such a conclusion, it must contain obvious errors.

Can the Commission forward to Parliament the report which is already available to the press?

Is this an example of the Commission's commitment to transparency?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

With regard to the information which appeared in the Spanish press on 17 April, the Commission's Spokesman's Service has already stated that it is far too early to comment on the possibility of a positive decision on the costs of transition to competition in the Spanish electricity sector. The supposed Commission report to which the newspaper article refers is in fact an internal note by the Directorate-General for Competition which was drawn up as a basis for discussion within the DG but has not been the subject of any official decision. The Commission regrets that the contents of the note were leaked, but it is not responsible for any conclusions reached by the press as to the Commission's final decision on the matter. In any case, the document has nothing to do with the report submitted by an independent expert asked by the Commission to verify certain assumptions made by the Spanish authorities regarding calculation of the costs of transition to competition. This report contains confidential information and is covered by the rules on business secrecy. For this reason, the Commission considers that it should not be made available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/00

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: The social and economic effects which the progressive withdrawal of export refunds would have on the processing and export sector

In view of the World Trade Organisation's move towards having export refunds reduced or withdrawn, and in view of the many marketing and export companies which receive export refunds and which are involved in pre-export production or processing operations, has the Commission given any consideration to the social and economic effects which the gradual withdrawal of export refunds (which, in the case of many products, have become essential or crucial to the feasibility of export sales and even to the survival of companies) would have on the processing and export sector? Can it provide any studies or reports on the subject?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0631/00 and E-0633/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The negotiation approach for agriculture outlined in the communication from the Commission to the Council and to the Parliament on the EU approach to the Millennium Round(1) is still relevant. In this communication it was stated that the decisions adopted regarding the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) within the framework of Agenda 2000 would constitute essential elements in defining the Commission's negotiating mandate for the future multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organisation.

This communication does not refer to elimination of export subsidies. It should, however, be recalled that the decisions taken regarding reform of the CAP would diminish the need for export subsidies, since market price support is reduced and support to the farmers is granted to a larger degree as direct payments. As a consequence of such reform measures, agricultural basic products will remain available for the processing industry at lower prices than at present, and the need for export subsidies for processed product will also be reduced. In addition, the Commission is considering modernisation of the inward processing regime with a view to improving transparency and predictability in the administration of the regime. The Commission is not aware of studies or reports as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(1999) 331 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Impact on Greek agricultural produce of the trade agreement between the EU and South Africa

The trade cooperation agreement concluded between the European Union and South Africa has caused considerable concern, notably in Italy and Greece, about the possible consequences for fresh and processed fruit and vegetables in the southern countries of the Union. As regards Greece in particular, the products affected are tinned peaches and apricots, fruit salads and fruit juices and Greek Valencia oranges, whose marketing period coincides in part with that of South African produce.

In signing the EU-South Africa agreement did the Commission consider the consequences for fresh and processed Greek and Italian produce? Does it intend to provide for measures (derogations, restrictions on tariff concessions, etc.) in order to avoid any adverse consequences due to the implementation of this agreement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

In setting out the negotiating mandate of the Commission prior to commencement of negotiations towards the Community/South Africa Agreement on trade, development and co-operation, the Council was very much aware of the sensitivity of the fruit and vegetables sector.

Accordingly, in general the Council excluded the most sensitive products in the sector from liberalisation and only accepted in some very specific cases tariff quotas where the quantities were based on current trade flows.

For less sensitive products where the Council accepted liberalisation the Commission negotiated such liberalisation to be implemented as late as possible in order to give the sector a reasonable delay to prepare for the new situation.

The Honourable Member should also be aware that a joint declaration on agricultural quota annexed to the Agreement (paragraph 2) states that Concerning in particular prepared fruits (peaches, pears and apricots) South Africa agrees to manage its exports to the European Union in a balanced way.

Finally, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to Article 15 of the Agreement, which contains a general safeguard clause for agriculture products. Either party to the Agreement may initiate the safeguard procedures under this clause, if imports cause or threaten to cause a serious disturbance on their market.