ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0590/00 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Council. EBRD loans to Russian energy companies.



Official Journal 026 E , 26/01/2001 P. 0067 - 0068



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0590/00 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Council (2 March 2000) Subject: EBRD loans to Russian energy companies Can the Council say whether it has any plans to review the operation of the EBRD's Agreement and Guidelines for lending to Russian energy companies? Reply (26 June 2000) The Council has, as such, no competence to review the operation of the Agreement and Guidelines for lending of the EBRD, which institution was created by an international agreement concluded between, at the time, 39 European and non European countries, such as the USA and Japan on the one hand and the EU and the EIB on the other hand.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1394/00

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Principles of the Single Market

One of my constituents was stopped in France recently and asked how much money he had. I understand it is illegal to bring in more than FF 50 000 in cash without declaring it to the authorities and stating the source of the money and for what purpose it will be used. Surely this contradicts the principles of the Single Market?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

According to the Community legislation, the transfer of cash is considered as a capital movement. The basic principles of the freedom of capital movements (which is one of the four basic freedoms of the single market) are enshrined in the EC Treaty under Article 56 (ex Article 73b), which stipulates that all restrictions on the free movements of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited. This applies also to the physical import and export of means of payments of all kinds (i.e. notes, coins, bearer securities, etc).

However, under Article 58 (ex Article 73d) of the EC Treaty, it is set out that the provisions of Article 56 shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or security, provided the measures and procedures applied shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital.

This allows Member States to establish a declaration system by which the import or export of currency in excess of a given amount has to be declared to the customs administration. Moreover, the Member States using such a declaration system have also the right to define amounts of fines in case of infringement of the said regulation. In this context, it appears that the obligation to declare to the French authorities any import or export of means of payments above the limit of FRF 50 000 does not constitute, in principle, a breach of the freedom of capital movements since the custom regulation adopted seems compatible with the Community legislation in that matter.

While they are, in principle, compatible with Community rules, and can be a weapon in the fight against illegal activity, a lack of information on the requirements to declare can cause problems for legitimate operations. In the context of its information campaign on the single market, the Commission is making requirements on declaration more widely known.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0907/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Polluting activities of olive kernel oil plant in Crete

In reply to my question E-2328/99(1) on health problems arising from the operation of an olive kernel oil plant in Iraklion, Crete, the Commission states that it does not have any information on the pollution caused by this plant and asks me to send it a dossier describing the plant's polluting activities.

As I am informed that the problems persist and are making living conditions in the area unbearable, I am handing over to you a dossier containing documents from the ministries concerned, the local authorities and local organisations in the town, together with press reports. Will the Commission then answer my questions and provide further information if possible?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 103.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2000)

The Commission has just received the dossier concerning the pollution caused by the olive oil plant in Iraklion, Crete. This type of activity is listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(1).

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will investigate the case to check that Community law was not infringed when the environmental impact assessment presented by the company concerned was prepared. If the Commission finds that Community law has been infringed, it will decide whether infringement proceedings should be initiated against Greece under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Implications of asymmetrical legal position of ownership

In what sectors of the EU economy is it still the case that an asymmetrical legal position concerning ownership still exists, in other words, where it is possible for a state-owned company in one Member State to buy a private company in another, but where it is impossible for a private company to enter the market of the state-owned company? Is this still the case of the French electricity market? What measures is the Commission taking to open up those markets it indicates?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission does not have at its disposal the necessary data to give the Honorable Member an exhaustive answer on all the asymmetrical legal positions of ownership in all sectors of the economy.

As a general point, the Commission would note that the presence of state enterprises in certain sectors of economic activity is a matter solely for the Member States, within the limits of the rules imposed by the EC Treaty and of the policies liberalising certain economic sectors at Community level.

The electricity sector is regulated by Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1). The Directive does not regulate the ownership of electricity companies, but lays down the rules relating to the organisation and functioning of the electricity sector and access to the market. Nevertheless, the Commission follows the issue of mergers and acquisitions in the electricity sector very closely. Where these have a Community aspect, they will be dealt with under the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings)(2).

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; as last amended by OJ L 40, 13.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: ESF Projects and time-scales

A Gloucester-based project in the UK called Childcare for all has been funded by the ESF. During the course of the project, the Childcare Networker raised concerns about the limited time scale imposed by the European Social Fund, stating that, in her opinion, this limit made it almost impossible to carry out the appropriate networking and team building with related projects and organisations that is necessary to ensure the success of the project.

Will the Commission indicate if it is likely to consider allowing the European Social Fund to continue to provide aid over a longer period of time than is the case at present?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

The Commission and the national authorities in the United Kingdom are aware that the limited duration of European Social Fund (ESF) co-funded projects may have caused some constraints during the programming period 1994-1999.

The responsibility for fixing the detailed rules for the implementation of the ESF within a Member State lies with the managing authority of the programme. The programming documents adopted by the Commission do not contain information on, for example, the duration of projects. In these circumstances, the Commission cannot intervene in this matter. However, the Commission has encouraged the Department for education and employment (DfEE) to pursue the objective of adapting current practices.

The DfEE and regional government offices are currently preparing specific implementing provisions as well as guidance and application forms for project promoters. In the course of this process, it has been agreed that for the ESF in England the project duration will be up to two years as a general rule and three years in exceptional cases. These provisions should help to ensure that future ESF co-funded projects are better planned and carried out more effectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1411/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Details concerning information about the euro

Can the Commission provide details of all books, brochures and other printed matter being published and details of conferences and other activities taking place to provide information about the euro? Will it also state the cost of each activity and say under which budget heading they are entered?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1411/00, E-1495/00 and E-1496/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The InfEuro newsletter is published in 11 languages and has a total circulation of 380 000. Some 7 000 copies are printed for the Swedish edition. The cost of publishing and distributing one issue is as follows: 65 000 for pre-press work, 45 000 for printing and 70 000 for distribution (mailing lists). In other words, the total cost per issue is 180 000 (the single unit cost per issue is 0,47).

With regard to overall budgetary aspects, the Honourable Member may refer to the tables sent directly to him and to the Parliament's General Secretariat. These tables show the details of agreements concluded with the Member States which decided to enter into partnerships with the Union, the breakdown by category of the cost of activities planned in 2000 and the breakdown of expenditure in the previous two financial years.

A list of all the main products developed can be found in the annex to the Commission Communication on communications strategy in the last phases of the completion of EMU(1), approved on 2 February 2000.

(1) COM(2000) 57 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: European Union Subsidies

In cases where European Union subsidies have been obtained by means of fraudulent acts or declarations, or have been spent in an improper way, the Commission demands their repayment.

Could it provide details of the total amount of Community funds in respect of which repayment has been demanded to date, indicating the exact sums recovered in absolute terms and as a percentage of the overall total, as well as the identity and nationality of the beneficiaries from whom those monies have been recovered?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission requires beneficiaries to reimburse subsidies or other payments which they have obtained in a fraudulent manner or which they have not used in a way consistent with the decision awarding the subsidy or with the terms of a contract. With regard to the recovery, a distinction should be made between Community budget entitlements and the procedure for recovering indirect expenditure.

Community budget entitlements

How entitlements (other than own resources) are recovered is described in the The revenue and expenditure account and financial balance sheet, the 1998 version of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat (figures for 1999 are not yet available).

However, since the main objective of the computerised management and reporting systems currently available is to facilitate the recovery of individual entitlements, no figures as such or percentages broken down by type of debtor can be provided. Future improvements in reporting as part of the Sincom2 accounting system should enable the Commission to streamline its statistics.

Recovery of indirect expenditure

In 1998 the clearance of CAP accounts for previous years produced 654 820 948 (Item B1-3700) whilst the amounts recovered and other repayments (not including public storage operations) provided 15 967 394 (B1-389 and B1-399) for the agricultural budget of the year.

Over the programming periods 1988-1993 and 1994-1999 7 693 442 granted under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was withdrawn on account of irregularities under Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments(1).

When the accounts relating to ERDF programmes or Cohesion Fund projects are closed, amounts granted may be withdrawn for various reasons connected with irregularities although the formal procedure for withdrawing assistance is not necessarily initiated.

Given the information systems available to the Commission, the amount of research needed to give a detailed answer to the Honourable Member's questions would be disproportionate to the questions and would go beyond the framework of an answer to a written question.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Quarterly calculation of bank interest payable by account-holders

Does the European Union consider it admissible that up until July 2000, Italy will continue to tolerate (i.e. consider legal) anatocisms, i.e. the quarterly calculation of interest payable by account-holders (be they private individuals or companies), while the interest payable by banks is calculated on an annual basis?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

In its reply to Written Question No 0532/00, the Commission pointed out that under Article 4 of the EC Treaty the Community's economic policy is based on the internal market and is conducted in accordance with the principles of an open market economy with free competition. Only by adhering to this principle is it possible to achieve an optimum allocation of economic resources in the interests of both firms and consumers. In this connection, the Commission observed that, in its view, it was neither possible nor expedient to intervene regarding the interest rates applied by credit institutions. This also applies to methods of calculating interest payable; it is up to each credit institution to offer services to clients in the light of its assessment of the market and the associated risks, and this, of course, in compliance with the rules on competition and transparency in financial transactions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0969/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Extraction and marketing of sand from the River Lima

For years the industrial extraction of sand and gravel has been carried out on the right bank of the estuary of the River Lima including cleaning and marketing operations, this has led to the growing salinity of the water of the river, thereby threatening the quality of the water supply of Viana do Castelo.

The situation in the estuary may be further aggravated if moves go ahead to construct new links with the port which would destroy the existing marshes and the biodiversity of the region.

It should be recalled that the River Lima estuary is one of the areas to be included in the NATURA 2000 Network, and is already recognised by the CORINE Programme's Biotopes project.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Have Community funds been granted for dredging operations in the Lima River and port works in Viana do Castelo?

2. Has any project for the construction of new access routes to the port been submitted with a request for funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Under the European Regional Development Fund, the Commission has part-financed a project to improve access by sea (involving dredging) in the port of Viana do Castelo, preliminary studies for railway works, a pre-project on road access and the relevant environmental impact study.

It is worth recalling that in the case of projects of a total volume under 25 million responsibility rests with the national authorities for implementation of the programme and checking that projects selected for Community part-financing meet all the necessary administrative and legal requirements, including compliance with the current environmental rules. The Commission is able to check that all these conditions have been met through its participation in the monitoring committees for part-financed programmes.

Regarding the potential impact of the above projects on the natural assets in the area (fauna, flora and habitats), the relevant provisions are those in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), in particular

Article 6, which requires a proper evaluation of the impact as well as a study of alternatives if the area concerned is indeed part of a site of Community importance proposed by Portugal in 1997 as a contribution to the Natura 2000 network in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive.

A letter reminding the Portuguese authorities of these provisions has been sent.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0701/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Rules on information

Directive 98/34/EC(1), amended by Directive 98/48/EC(2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, requires each Member State, with effect from 5 August 1999, to notify the Commission at the drafting stage of any new rules on information society services, so as to prevent the emergence of barriers to the free movement of on-line services,

Given that any adoption of draft national rules without first notifying the Commission would be an infringement of Community law by the Member State concerned, regardless of the substance of the national legislation, will the Commission say whether or not Italy complied with this procedure when adopting Law 4197 B of the Senate (known as par conditio) and, if not, whether it intends to initiate infringement proceedings against that Member State?

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(2) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

In its answers to Written Questions P-1608/99 of Mr Tajani(1) and E-1734/99 of Mr Ferri(2), the Commission noted that the draft Italian law on information and political and campaign advertising (referred to as the par condicio law) contained, at that time, provisions on information society services.

However, it appears that those provisions are no longer included in the definitive text of Law No 28 of 22 February 2000, adopted by the Italian Parliament, which governs only communication and political messages on radio broadcasting channels (see Articles 2 and 4).

In view of the fact that on-line information and political and campaign advertising (for example via the Internet) are therefore not covered by the Italian law referred to and that radio broadcasting and audio-visual services are specifically excluded from the scope of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by the Transparency Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations)(3), the adoption of the Italian law on par condicio does not constitute infringement of the prior notification procedure provided for under that Directive.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000.

(3) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Czech Republic's progress on the way to accession

Does the Commission share the view that the Czech Republic's restitution law is contrary to international law in so far as the non-retention of Czech nationality continues to be treated as grounds for exclusion from restitution of property even when that nationality was not surrendered voluntarily, and is the Commission prepared to remind the government of the Czech Republic that compliance with international law is an indispensable pre-condition for accession?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.