ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1812/99

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Repressive action taken by the Moroccan authorities in the Western Sahara

The Polisario Front and various other bodies have drawn the attention of the UN Secretary-General and international public opinion to violent acts of repression perpetrated in September by the Moroccan authorities in the town of El Aaiún (Western Sahara) during a peaceful demonstration organised by the workers of the Fos Bucraa company, out-of-work graduates and students against the occupation of the territory and in support of specific demands. As a result of those acts of violence, one person died, forty were injured and dozens disappeared.

Would the Council not agree that, in view of the undertakings that Morocco has given to the international community, such action is not in accordance with the behaviour expected of that country during the preparations for the referendum on self-determination?

Does it intend to protest to the Moroccan Government and demand that those responsible be identified and that there be no repetition of such behaviour in the future?

Does it intend to call on the Moroccan authorities to ensure full respect for the right of free expression and the right to demonstrate of the citizens of the Western Sahara?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

In view of the recent incidents to which the Honourable Member refers, Heads of Missions of EU Member States in Rabat have been asked to closely monitor the situation on the ground.

In a recent address to the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Council declared that the EU fully supported the UN Settlement Plan for the holding of a free, fair and impartial referendum concerning the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. It noted with satisfaction the resumption of the voter identification process and the implementation of the appeals procedure. It welcomed the UN Secretary-General's assessment that, despite delays, the implementation of the appeals procedure and the resumption of the voter identification process could be seen as signalling the intention of both parties to continue working towards the holding of the referendum.

The Council gives its full support to the efforts made by the UN Secretary-General, by his Special Representative for Western Sahara, Ambassador Eagleton, by the Deputy Special Representative, Mr Robert Kinloch, and by the chairman of the Identification Commission, Mr Eduardo Vetere.

The Council has called upon both parties to fully cooperate throughout the voter identification and the appeals process in preparation for a free, fair and impartial referendum to give effect to the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1797/99

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Age discrimination against foreign pilots in France

An article in The Times of 2 September headed French age rule clips wings of British pilots says that the French government operates an age limit of 60 for commercial pilots, whereas the age limit in other Member States is 65. As a result, commercial pilots aged between 60 and 65 are denied access to French airspace because of differences in age limits. This discrepancy prevents people from exercising their fundamental rights, in this instance the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of age. The question of discrimination on grounds of age is of topical importance in view of the forthcoming talks on a European charter of fundamental rights.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Does the Commission agree that this situation could be damaging to the commercial pilots affected?

3. Are such discrepancies in rules between Member States undesirable?

4. What does the Commission intend to do about this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it is fully aware of the situation in France with regard to age limits for pilots. The Commission does not condone this situation but is unable to intervene at present because currently flight crew licences are recognised for the purpose of overflying and landing of international civil flights, provided they are issued in accordance with Annex I to the Chicago Convention. This Annex contains a standard which prohibits the exercise of pilot-in-command duties on

commercial flights beyond the age of 60 years and carries a recommendation that over-sixties should not fulfil co-pilot duties on such flights. Accordingly, while certain states have filed a difference to Annex I to the Convention in order to allow their own licences to remain valid for exercising duties on board commercial airplanes beyond this limit, there are no powers which can oblige other states to accept this difference for the overflight of their territory.

The Joint aviation authorities (JAA) work on the harmonisation of flight crew licensing rules produced a compromise which would allow licences to remain valid for exercising duties on board commercial airplanes until their holders are 65, provided that they operate such duties on multi-crew airplanes where the other pilot is aged less than 60 years. Nevertheless such a compromise is not binding on JAA member states and they still can decide not to accept overflight of their territory by commercial planes in which the pilot in command is more than 60 years of age.

The Commission is currently working on a proposal to harmonise standards and requirements for flight crew licensing throughout the Community. This proposal will clearly have to pass through the normal Community process, and issues such as the age limit can be further discussed in the Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2299/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Tax arrangements which distort competition within the EU

Can the Commission confirm that a working party of Commission officials has identified 60 tax arrangements in a number of Member States which may be regarded as distorting competition?

Is it true that according to the working party's report the Netherlands heads the list of countries with tax arrangements that distort competition, nine of its arrangements coming in for criticism for this reason?

Which are the nine offending tax arrangements?

Is it true that not a single competition-distorting tax arrangement was identified in Germany, France, Italy or Britain (i.e. in the large Member States)? Is this not curious, and on what grounds was this conclusion reached?

What is the Commission's opinion of the officials' report, and when will the Commission issue its own political assessment?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The code of conduct group (business taxation) was established by the Ecofin Council on 9 March 1998. By common accord, Mrs Dawn Primarolo, British Treasury minister, was appointed to chair the group for a two-year period.

The group's main task has been to assess the tax measures that may fall within the code of conduct for business taxation that was adopted by the Council and representatives of the governments of Member States on 1 December 1997. This code concerns those tax measures which affect, or may affect, in a significant way the location of business activity within the Community, and all Member States have been free to discuss and comment on tax measures of other Member States that may fall within the scope of the code.

All Member States and the Commission are represented at a high level in this group which presented its final report to the Ecofin Council on 29 November 1999.

The Council agreed that the work of the group should be confidential and it would not be appropriate for the Commission to comment on the detail of the report or on particular aspects of the work of this Council group.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2658/99 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Fisheries Council meetings.



Official Journal 219 E , 01/08/2000 P. 0184 - 0184



WRITTEN QUESTION P-2658/99 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Council (22 December 1999) Subject: Fisheries Council meetings Could the Council provide statistics about the representation and attendance by Member State Ministers at Fisheries Council meetings with particular regard to sub-Member State representation? How frequently do devolved Ministers represent Member States in Council when they have the right to speak and vote? Reply (14 February 2000) The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it does not keep statistics regarding the representation and attendance by Member States at Fisheries Councils. In cases of devolved responsibility, it is up to each Member State to determine how and by whom it is represented in Fisheries Council meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1970/99

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 October 1999)

Subject: VAT refunds in Italy

This question is based on an actual case. A Danish company supplied fertiliser and watering systems to a greenhouse operator in Sardinia in 1994 and the work was completed in early 1995. The assembly work was carried out by an Italian company which then invoiced the Danish company with 19 % VAT.

The Danish company then, as normal, sent the invoices to the Danish exporters association which then, via an Italian VAT consultants, Pichler & Co, was to ensure that the Danish company received its VAT refund.

Despite promises by the Italian revenue authorities and the support of Fischler & Co, the refund of the VAT has not yet been paid.

Is it true that VAT refunds should be paid within six months, and if it is, what action will the Commission take in respect of Italy's failure to comply?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

Article 7(4) of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation 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) requires Member States to make refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the Member State within six months of the date when the applications for the refunds were submitted. Member States are required to state the grounds for refusal of an application within the same period.

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, the eighth directive on the refund of value added tax to taxable persons established in other Member States has been duly transposed into Italian law. Nonetheless, the Commission's attention has been drawn to various technical problems concerning compliance with the time limit for the refund of VAT paid in Italy by taxable persons who are not established in that country. The Commission has contacted the Italian authorities and is trying to resolve these problems as soon as possible.

The Commission nonetheless points out that, according to its sources, the Italian authorities have already taken action on all refund applications submitted by foreign taxable persons for the year 1995. In view of these facts, the Honourable Member would be advised to provide the Commission with practical details concerning the specific case raised, thereby enabling the Commission to take whatever action may be appropriate.

(1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2539/99

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Report on animal welfare required under Council Directive 98/58

Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58(1) concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes requires the Commission, before 30 June 1999, to submit to the Council a report:

(a) comparing animal welfare provisions in the Community and in non-member countries which supply the Community,

(b) on the scope for obtaining wider international acceptance of the welfare principles laid down in Council Directive 98/58, and

(c) on the extent to which Community animal welfare objectives may be liable to be undermined as a result of competition from non-member countries which do not apply equivalent standards.

Bearing in mind that the above report is closely connected to the impact on animal welfare of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and that the new WTO Round is to commence shortly, when does the Commission intend to submit the report required by Directive 98/58?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the relevance of the report in respect of the priority given to animal welfare policies inside the Community and the importance of obtaining a wide international acceptance of these policies.

To draw up this report, the Commission has sent letters to those third countries supplying red meat, poultry meat, fish products and live animals to the Community, requesting information on their legislation or guidelines in the field of animal protection on the farm, during transport and at the time of slaughter. The Commission has written to 104 countries and has received information from 73 of them.

The analysis of the information is continuing and it is anticipated that the report will be presented to the Council shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1548/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Articles of precious metals

In October 1993 the Commission recognized that it was not possible to achieve mutual recognition of national practices and submitted a proposal for a directive seeking to harmonize Member State legislation on articles of precious metals (COM(93) 322 final)(1). It is now five years since the proposal for a directive was brought forward.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Are there still technical barriers to the free movement of articles of precious metals within the Union?

2. If so, what is preventing the removal of such obstacles and the attainment of one of primary objectives of the Treaties?

3. Are there any objective responsibilities or specific desiderata that are delaying harmonization in this sphere?

4. If the obstacles have not been removed, what steps will the Commission take to prevent firms that are in favour of harmonization from being penalized by the lack of free movement for articles of precious metals?

(1) OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1999)

As stated by the Commission in its answers to written questions E-3158/98 by Mr Ferrer(1) and E-3431/98 by Mr Valdivieso de Cué(2), several activities have already been launched in order to ensure compliance with the principle of the free movement of jewellery.

Firstly, as stressed by the Honourable Member there is a proposal for a Council and Parliament directive(3) that is intended, in particular, to harmonise the national laws on pieces of precious metal work in order to guarantee their free movement. The proposal is intended to harmonise degrees of fineness, hallmarks and responsibility marks, together with the certification systems (quality assurance, the EC declaration of conformity and checking by third parties).

Under the procedure provided for in Article 251 (former Article 189b) of the EC Treaty, that proposal has already been examined by Parliament on first reading. Conversely, the Council has still not been able to adopt a common position because of the differences of opinion among the Member States with regard to the intended certification procedures.

The version currently under discussion within the Council provides for a compromise solution whereby equivalence would be established between only two of the three certification systems, namely between third-party checking and quality assurance, the EC declaration of conformity system being retained on an optional basis.

Secondly, while awaiting harmonisation at Community level, the Commission has brought infringement actions against most of the Member States in order to bring the national regulations into line with the conclusions of the Court of Justice in its Houtwipper judgment(4). The infringement procedures have caused the laws concerned to be amended in most of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 33.

(2) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 69.

(3) OJ C 318, 25.11.1993, amended version OJ C 209, 29.7.1994.

(4) Case 293/93, 15.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2423/99

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Waste incineration plant at Battipaglia (Italy)

By means of Decree No 27/97 the Region of Campania approved the regional plan for waste disposal, which identifies the industrial development zone of the district of Battipaglia as a suitable location for the construction of a plant designed to produce energy using waste-derived fuel.

The zone in question is in the immediate vicinity of the urban centre and is therefore densely populated. The siting of a waste incinerator in the Battipaglia industrial development zone would have serious effects on the area and would lead to a breach of environmental quality standards which are already under threat. In addition, the area is a centre for tourism and agriculture, particularly the dairy industry, and the construction of plant of this kind would seriously jeopardise the whole economic and social balance of the Sele plain.

In the light of the above:

- will the Commission ascertain whether the above reports are true?

- will it say whether the construction of a waste incineration plant in the abovementioned area represents a breach of Council directives 89/369/EEC, 89/429/EEC and 94/67/EEC on Community waste management strategy, the Council resolution of 24 February 1997 (97/C 76/01) and the proposal for a Council directive on waste incineration (COM(98) 558), as well as other Community rules on environment protection?

- if so, will it ask the Italian government to find a different and more suitable location for the plant?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Council Directives 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(1), 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants(2) and 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste(3) are of application only with reference to operational installations and, therefore, cannot be considered relevant to this case, since this plant for waste incineration with energy recovery in Battipaglia (Salerno) appears not to have been constructed yet. In addition, the resolutions of the Council and the proposals for directives, quoted by the Honourable Member, do not have legally binding effects in this case.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, from which it can be deduced that there could be problems for the location of this plant, the Commission considers that Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(4), can be of application in this case.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law and in particular of the Directive mentioned.

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.

(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2608/99

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Directive 79/409/EEC Dates of the hunting season

The procedure for amending Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds initiated during the previous parliamentary term in order, inter alia, to lay down the detailed rules for the implementation and transposition into national law of Article 7 of that directive, has not been concluded. What, therefore, are the Commission's views on the fixing of the dates of the hunting season in the various Member States?

Precisely how does it interpret the general provisions laid down in Article 7 in its present wording?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

As the procedure for amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds is not yet complete, the Member States must fix the dates of the hunting season for birds in accordance with the current provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Directive.

Interpretation of Community law falls not to the Commission, but to the Court of Justice, which has already interpreted Article 7(4) in its judgments of 17 January 1991 (Case C-157/89, Commission v Italy(1)) and 19 January 1994 (Case C-435/92, Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages and others v Préfet de Maine-et-Loire and Préfet de Loire-Atlantique, Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal administratif de Nantes France(2)).

(1) European Court Reports 1991, p. I-0057.

(2) European Court Reports 1994, p. I-0067.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Conversion of national currencies

On 1 January 2002 the euro will replace the national currency in eleven EU Member States. Although arrangements have been made for the conversion of bank notes, this does not seem to be the case as regards the conversion of coinage.

Does the Commission not think that specific arrangements to enable the eleven Member States' coinage to be converted must be considered and adopted in order to ensure that all people living in the countries which have adopted the euro are able to convert the coins in their possession into euros?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

Between 1 January 2002 and 30 June 2002 the Member States participating in economic and monetary union (EMU) will have to withdraw bank notes and coins in national currency. The Honourable Member raises two points: first, the conversion into euros of national coins in the Member State of issue and, second, the conversion into euros of coins from one Member State in another Member State.

With regard to the first point, Community legislation on the conversion of coins in national currency into euro coins when the transitional period ends on 31 December 2001 stipulates that the bodies issuing these coins will continue to accept national coins presented to them, after they are no longer legal tender, in accordance with the laws and arrangements in force in the Member State in question. The situation is therefore the same as that for bank notes.

The Commission takes the view that additional measures should be taken to ensure a smooth transition to euro notes and coins. In its recommendation 98/0286/EC(1) of 23 April 1998, it therefore called on banks to convert household amounts free of charge for their customers. This applies to notes and coins alike.

With regard to the second point, it should be noted that, as matters stand, it is not generally possible to exchange coins from another Member State in another Member State in the euro area. The question is therefore whether an additional service should be put in place when euro notes and coins are introduced, what the price and conditions of such a service would be and who would bear the costs of it. In the light of the particular logistical problems associated with handling coins, significant resources would probably be necessary if conversion were possible throughout the euro area. In general, however, the value of national coins is limited and therefore the bodies offering this service would not stand to benefit greatly. Nevertheless, the Commission is aware of the problem and is currently discussing arrangements for talks with the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the Member States with a view to finding a solution which is both economically reasonable and satisfactory for individuals in the Union.

(1) COM(98) 961 final.