ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Air transport liberalisation

At present many passengers miss their air travel connections because airlines, despite computer link-ups between them, do not provide boarding cards for connecting flights operated by other airlines, in order to force passengers to buy the tickets for their whole journey from the same airline.

Another fairly frequent practice is not to book luggage through to its final destination as different airlines operate different sections of the journey.

Are there any regulations to avoid these abusive practices by airlines?

If not, does the Commission intend to introduce any kind of regulation to protect consumers from these abusive practices by airlines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

A central aim of Community policy for air transport has been to create a single, competitive market, which has now been largely realised. This implies that airlines are free to compete and to decide which services to offer their customers, subject to legislation on safety, the environment, passengers' rights and so on.

The Commission is working on the strengthening of passengers' contractual rights and on the promotion of voluntary initiatives by airlines to improve their treatment of passengers. It will present a communication on the subject, to be ready in June 2000. In the meantime, it will launch a campaign to inform passengers of the rights that they already enjoy under Community law by arranging for the display of a charter of air passengers' rights in airports and elsewhere.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Inaugural meeting of the Interparliamentary Association for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

The Interparliamentary Association for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries held a meeting in South Korea, from 22 to 24 February 2000, at which it examined those areas in relation to the WTO. It appears that the EU was represented only by a Commission expert, and that no MEPs were present, although the nature of the reunion would have made their presence desirable.

Can the Commission state whether:

1. it was invited to take part in this meeting;

2. if so and in view of the meeting's importance, it does not believe it should have ensured its participation in it at the highest level, with the presence of a Commissioner?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

No.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Question H-0191/00.



Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0168 - 0168



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council (27 April 2000) Subject: Question H-0191/00 On 17 March 2000 I received a written reply to my oral question H-0191/00 on Israel and Russia. I should point out that the Council discussed only the first and second paragraphs of my question while fully ignoring the third, and decisive paragraph. In particular the Council failed to make the link with the action currently being taken by fourteen Member States against Austria, which was the point of the question. The question must therefore be regarded as largely unanswered, and I should now like a more detailed answer. Reply (10 July 2000) The Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to his earlier question on this issue. Since the last paragraph of this question was addressed to the Portuguese Presidency, it would not be appropriate for the Council to respond. This is in any case an issue on which the Council has not taken a view.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: EPAC restructuring plans

The answer of 15 March 2000 given by Commissioner Franz Fischler on behalf of the Commission to my Written Question E-0221/00(1) on the EPAC Agro-Foods and Cereals Company states that Portugal forwarded the final version of the restructuring plans to the Commission at the end of 1999 and that the Commission would take a final position on the matter as soon as possible.

The Commission:

- can it say when it will take its decision?

- can it forward its position on the Portuguese Government's proposal, once it has been adopted?

(1) OJ C 26 E 26.1.2001, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

It is not yet possible for the Commission to give a precise date for its final decision, given the possible implications for it of proceedings in hand in the Court of Justice over Portugal's failure to apply the Commission Decision of 9 July 1997(1) on a State guarantee to EPAC.

The Commission's final decision will be immediately notified to the Portuguese Government.

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0665/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Echelon telecommunications monitoring system. Involvement of the United Kingdom

Is the Commission aware of the revelations which have appeared in a number of newspapers and which featured in a news bulletin broadcast on 21 February 2000 by the international French-language television channel TV5 concerning the Campbell report, according to which the United Kingdom is involved in a telecommunications monitoring system known as Echelon which is run by the USA and whose coverage extends to include Europe?

Under the terms of a secret agreement concluded in 1948 with the USA, the United Kingdom provides facilities for the equipment needed for this gigantic ear, which is capable of intercepting any kind of communication.

The Campbell report maintains that the USA has used the system not only for military purposes but also in order to benefit US industries and companies at the expense of European ones.

Is the Commission aware of these revelations?

Does the Commission not consider that the United Kingdom has broken the solidarity pact which binds all the EU Member States?

Does the Commission not think that, in such circumstances, it should suggest to the Council of Ministers that the latter impose exemplary sanctions on the United Kingdom for infringement of the Amsterdam Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement on Echelon at Parliament's March III part session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1623/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Subject: Workforce of Tonno Nostromo in Vibo Valentia

Is the Commission aware of the threat to jobs at the Porto Salvo factory of Tonno Nostromo (Calvo Group), a company which for years has been involved in, and has accounted for, a substantial market share in a region with very high unemployment, and which is now claiming that the returns on processing the same product are higher in Spain than in Italy.

In particular, Tonno Nostromo's workers have drawn up a conversion plan for setting up a tuna canning centre in Calabria, while the trade unions have stated that they are willing to discuss the flexibility and equipment needed to organise such work more efficiently.

Will the Commission state whether it is considering intervening to help speed up this industrial conversion process?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is not empowered to intervene directly in industrial restructuring plans such as those referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would recall that Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1) and the national provisions transposing it into Italian law may be applicable to the case in question.

Besides, in accordance with Article 16(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(2), Member States may grant compensation, part-funded by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), to the fish processing industry for temporary cessation of their activity. It is for the authority responsible for managing the structural programme concerned to decide whether or not to grant the compensation in question, in compliance with the abovementioned rules.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/00

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Phare programme for Croatia

In view of the positive outcome of the elections in Croatia on 3 January 2000, will the Council reconsider the suspension of the Phare programme for Croatia?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

Recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Croatia, and the democratic way in which they were conducted, have opened a new phase in Croatian politics. The European Union has been very encouraged by this development, which has brought an end to a chapter in Croatian history and marks a beginning of a new era for the country. The Union has reiterated its willingness to work very closely with the new authorities in their quest for making Croatia a full fledged member of the Euro-Atlantic community.

Against this background, the General Affairs Council decided already in January to rapidly put in place a Joint EU-Croatia Taskforce within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process in order to prepare the ground for future contractual relations. The Task Force was set up on 15 February at a meeting in Brussels.

Furthermore, at its February meeting, the Council invited the Commission to prepare a study on the feasibility of opening negotiations with Croatia on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is certainly aware, the Council in the European Union's Regional Approach to South East Europe of 29 April 1997 set a number of criteria for the granting of preferential trade measures, PHARE assistance and contractual relations. These criteria are reviewed on a regular basis.

On the occasion of the latest review in February 2000, no major changes were decided upon for any of the countries covered by the EU's Stabilisation and Association Process and the Regional Approach criteria, i.e. the situation as far as PHARE assistance to Croatia, remained unchanged for the time being.

However, the Commission has sent a fact finding mission to Croatia in February in order to study possibilities to support the reform efforts, including the possibility of extending the PHARE programme to Croatia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0864/00

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: VAT on mandates

Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point 3, of the Belgian value added tax (VAT) code stipulates that the execution of contracts concerning mandates is regarded as a service.

The Belgian VAT authority infers from this that the activities of a person who has been given a mandate are always liable to VAT, even when that person intervenes in the context of an activity which is exempted by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC(1) of 17 May 1977.

Article 6 of the Sixth Directive, however, does not define mandate as a taxable service. On the contrary, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and, more specifically, from the judgment of 7 June 1977 in Case C 2/95, Sparekassernes Datacenter (SDC) v. Skatteministeriet that the activity of a person who has received a mandate must be exempted if that person himself carries out the activity exempted by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive. On the other hand, it follows from the judgement of the Court of Justice of 25 February 1999 in the case concerning Card Protection (Case C 349/96) that an exemption depends not on the capacity of service supplier but solely on the nature of the service supplied.

What is the Commission's interpretation in this matter? Does it believe that the activities of a person given a mandate are in principle always liable to VAT and thus even when his intervention occurs in the context of an activity which is exempted by Article 13 of the Sixth VAT Directive?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

The carrying out of a mandate for a consideration by a taxable person is incontestably a taxable operation within the meaning of Article 2 of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC. Although this activity is not explicitly named in Article 6 of the Sixth Directive, the supply of services is defined there by default: shall mean any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods.

Furthermore, as a general rule, operations upstream of the operations exempted do not benefit from this exemption and must therefore be taxed (judgment of 12 July 1985, case 107/84 Commission v. Germany).

On the other hand, it may also happen that the provider of the services under the mandate also carries out operations which are exempt if the beneficiary of the services is not the exempted customer but the party for whose benefit the exemption is intended.

However, the Commission considers that these issues must be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the fact that, since the exemptions are derogations from the general taxation rule, they must be interpreted in a restrictive manner, and therefore a general principle whereby all agents acting on mandates in exempt operations benefit from the exemption can not be drawn from the judgment of 7 June 1997 (case C-2/95 SDC).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0843/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Human resources in the Commission's Transport Directorate-General

In view of the expanding role being played by the Commission in seeking to bring about the improvement of passenger rail services and reverse the decline in rail freight, is the Commission satisfied that it has the staff resources in its transport division to do the job required effectively?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The new organisational structure resulting from the merger of the former Transport and Energy DGs, as approved by the Commission on 22 December 1999, broadly reflects the emphasis of European policy. The merger entailed a redeployment of staff, notably towards rail transport. Should this prove insufficient, further redeployment may be undertaken in the new Directorate-General, without prejudice to requests for additional staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0731/00

by Paul Coûteaux (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: FSCs Case before the WTO

The WTO's appeal body has recently condemned the American system of FSCs (Foreign Sales Corporations) which enable exporters to avoid all tax by using fictitious bases in tax havens. This system of avoiding export duties, currently legal in the USA, will therefore have to be dismantled (Report AB-1999-9, 24 February 2000). However, it is unlikely that Congress will be inclined to comply with the WTO's decision in the run-up to the election.

Can the Commission say whether, if the USA does not abolish FSCs within the prescribed time limit (before 30 September 2000), it proposes to implement sanctions of the same kind as those adopted by the USA in connection with the Euro-American dispute over hormone-treated beef, in other words to impose tit-for-tat trade restrictions?

Does the Commission intend to link these two cases in the context of wider negotiations on trans-Atlantic trade disputes?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission is confident that the United States will comply with their international obligations relating to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) and bring their legislation into line with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements before 1 October 2000. However, in the hypothetical case that the United States should fail to bring the FSC laws into line with the conclusions of the panel and the appellate body by this date, a number of options are open to the Community. These include negotiating compensation, and suspending concessions granted to the US. These are rights enjoyed by any party that brings a complaint before the WTO, should the obligations that result not be implemented as required, and are in no way peculiar to the FSC case. However, the Commission expects that the United States will indeed implement the recommendations made by the disputes settlement body of the WTO.

Concerning the second part of the question, the Commission has been working for some time now on the case of hormone-treated beef. Given the specific importance of each of these two cases in its own right, the Commission will endeavour to find an independent solution for each, in line with our international obligations under the WTO agreements.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2214/00

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Exclusion of EU-based Japanese car companies

Why are EU-based Japanese car companies excluded from Commission working parties involved in Climate Change and Auto Oil II?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Auto-Oil II programme is now finished. The reports are being finalised, and the Commission intends to adopt in September 2000 a communication presenting the outcome of the programme.

Auto-Oil II was characterised by the involvement of a wide range of parties. Automobile manufacturers were represented in particular by the European association ACEA. The Japanese car manufacturers were not directly involved, and did not express a pressing desire to be involved. They should nevertheless be involved in future similar programmes, not least in view of their increased presence as vehicle manufacturers in Europe.

An important initiative was recently launched in the context of climate change: the European climate change programme (ECCP). This follows up the Commission communication on policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions(1). It will be responsible for developing a series of options in the field of energy, transport and industry. A specific ECCP transport working group has been established. Again Japanese car manufacturers did not show any wish to participate directly in the initiative. Japanese car manufactures have, however, along with their European and Korean counterparts, committed themselves to quantitative targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars, and are involved in the monitoring of these commitments and all related issues. Furthermore, Japanese manufacturers are fully involved in the motor vehicle working group and motor vehicle emissions group which advise the Commission on vehicle-related regulatory questions.

(1) COM(2000) 88 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/00

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Air quality institute

The Health Effects Institute (HEI) has been set up in the USA to assess problems relating in particular to air quality and their possible implications for human health. Half its funding comes from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and half from industry. HEI analyses offer an excellent an independent basis for decision-making.

What is the Commission's assessment of the work of the Health Effects Institute in the USA?

Is the Commission contemplating the establishment of a similar institute in Europe? Has any action been taken to that effect?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the work of the Health effects institute. Research and other work organised by the Institute has been an important input to the United States-Environment protection agency (EPA's) recent analyses of the risks of air pollution to human health. This outcome of the Institute has also been taken into account by the World health organisation and by Member States in similar work in Europe.

The Commission is presently developing plans for a new integrated clean air programme. It intends to make a first report concerning the programme in 2004, covering risks to health and the environment, and any further action that should be taken to reduce them. The Commission has engaged consultants to provide advice on aspects of programme organisation. It will consider a range of options, including options for how best to obtain information on health effects, in the light of the results later this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2056/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Illegal immigration from the Balkans to Puglia

For many years now, illegal immigrants mostly from the Balkan countries have been landing on the coasts of Puglia, with all that that involves in terms of crime (arms and drugs trafficking, prostitution rackets), security and the economy (including serious damage to the tourist industry).

The immigrants are travelling by any means available, including rubber dinghies and unsafe vessels which endanger the lives of passengers (particularly women and children) and crew.

Can the Commission state whether it intends to expand maritime and air transport services between Puglia and the European countries, particularly the Balkan countries, not least with a view to reducing the extent of the traffic in illegal immigrants?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The Commission would like to point out that, without prejudice to Article 80 (2) (ex Article 84) of the EC Treaty, the issue of expanding maritime and air transport services between Puglia and the Balkan countries is for the Italian authorities, and not for the Commission, to decide.

Moreover, as far as illegal immigration from the Balkans to Puglia is concerned, the Commission is of the view that it is not because of lack of sufficient transport capacity that so many immigrants choose to use organised criminal networks in order to be smuggled, under dangerous circumstances, to the coasts of Puglia.

Accordingly, the Commission does not intend to suggest expanding maritime and air transport services between Puglia and the Balkan countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Fisheries agreements with Morocco

What stage have the negotiations on the new European Union fisheries with Morocco reached? Is the Commission negotiating in accordance with the recommendations made in Parliament's resolution?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

Following the negotiating mandate adopted by the Council, the Commission has been active at all levels to initiate the discussions on a new relationship with Morocco as soon as possible.

The member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries visited Rabat in May 2000. He was received by the King of Morocco and held discussions with the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues.

The Commission is very conscious of the concerns of the Parliament, which reflect the importance of fisheries relations between the Community and Morocco, both from an economic and social point of view.

The Commission is confident regarding the continuation of important bilateral fisheries relations with Morocco, with new forms of co-operation and new mechanisms, involving both public and private interests maintaining the mutual economic advantages and employment in the fisheries dependent areas, which will be profitable for both parties.

In this context, the Moroccan authorities confirmed their willingness to establish a new partnership with the Community in the fisheries sector, and expressed their availability to have a new meeting between the two parties in July 2000.

The Commission will keep the Parliament fully informed about the development of its contacts with the Moroccan authorities on the subject.