ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/01

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Plans for the Gigapole shopping centre on the Franco-German border (district of Forbach)

Plans under way to build a huge Gigapole shopping centre covering 100 000 square metres on the Franco-German border in the district of Forbach in the département of Moselle.

This gigantic centre would have a severely negative impact on the retail trade on both sides of the border. The Saarland traders' association estimates that purchasing power of DM 400 million per year would be diverted from local businesses to this Gigapole. The consequences would be inner city desolation and a retail slump in the neighbouring Saarland towns of Saarbrücken, Völklingen and Saarlouis as well as in the towns of Sarreguemines and Forbach in Lorraine.

Such a mega-centre - exploiting its proximity to the border - is contrary to all the rules of organised regional planning and socio-economic development.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. whether it is aware of the plans for the Gigapole in the district of Forbach, and

2. what measures it intends to take to stop this distortion of competition and breach of regional planning principles?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The Commission has not been informed of the plans for the construction of a Gigapole shopping centre in the Forbach area. Regulation of the establishment of shopping centres does not fall

within Community competence. Regional or spatial planning is dealt with by the competent regional or national authorities of the Member States. Thus it is not for the Commission to take a stance on such Questions.

However, the Commission encourages cross-border co-operation of the competent national or regional administrations.

The Community competition rules (Articles 81 and 82 (ex-Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty) concern the elimination of agreements between undertakings which restrict competition (e.g price-fixing agreements between competitors) and of abuses of a dominant position. Article 82 does not as such prohibit dominance.

While the Commission is willing to examine any complaint brought to its attention, it is unable, in the absence of any further detail, to share the view of the Honourable Member that the planned Gigapole shopping centre in the Forbach area is likely to distort competition in the sense of the Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Adulterated wine in Western Portugal

At the end of March this year various media reported that in Western Portugal 25 million litres of wine adulterated by the addition of water and spirits made from sugar cane or sugar beet had been seized.

The firm responsible had apparently already adulterated wine exported to Angola in this way in the past and had been discovered as a result of an investigation carried out by national and Community authorities, since the product received Community support for wine exports.

Can the Commission say:

- whether it knows of any cases of wine being adulterated by a firm in Western Portugal which has received Community export aid and, if so,

- how much the aid was worth and what measures were taken?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported that it had conducted an investigation in 1999 into exports of wine to Angola by a Portuguese company based in Lageosa Do Dao. The investigation found that the company in question had systematically employed illegal wine-making practices to increase the alcoholic strength of the wine, receiving export refunds worth 11 million to which it was not entitled.

OLAF's final report on the investigation was sent to the Portuguese administrative and legal authorities in March 2000. The Portuguese administrative authorities began the recovery procedure on 28 July 2000.

The Portuguese authorities issued two communications in 2000 on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field(1).

OLAF also announced that it had requested information from the Portuguese authorities on 10 April 2001 following further reports in the Portuguese press in March 2001. The Portuguese authorities replied that the evidence in their possession led them to conclude that no Community funds were involved in this case. They also invoked the confidentiality of the investigation. This case did not give rise to any communication under Regulation (EEC) No 595/91. This Regulation requires Member States, during the two months following the end of each quarter, to communicate to the Commission a list of irregularities which have been the subject of primary administrative or judicial findings of fact.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Tax on speculative capital flows

1. Has the Commission discussed the arguments for and against a tax on speculative capital flows?

2. Does the Commission have any plans to propose a tax on speculative capital flows?

3. Would the Commission support any possible proposals by the Belgian Presidency to introduce a tax on speculative capital flows?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Commission has recently replied to a number of Oral Questions on this subject (Questions H-0024/01 by Mr Sjöstedt during question time at Parliament's February 2001 part-session(1), and Questions H-0678/00 by Mrs Boudjenah, H-0665/00 by Mr Lipietz, H-0663/00 by Mr Désir, and H-0661/00 by Mrs Auroi during question time at Parliament's September 2000 part-session(2)).

At present, the Commission has no plans to propose a tax on speculative capital flows.

The Commission has not received any proposal from the Belgian Presidency to introduce a tax on speculative capital flows. If such a proposal were made, the Commission would give it due consideration.

(1) Written answer, 13.2.2001.

(2) Written answer, 6.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0534/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 February 2001)

Subject: Working languages in the European Patent Office

The European Union believes in the principle that any individual can approach the Institutions in any one of the eleven official languages. The question of the working languages of the European Patent Office must be seen in this light.

Does the Council acknowledge that applications for patents submitted to the European Patent Office should be in the eleven official EU languages? If so, in what way does the Council guarantee that individuals and firms can submit patent applications in the eleven official EU languages? If not, why not?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council has no powers in respect of the European Patent Office or the policy on language use which obtains there. The Office is not a European Union institution; it is part of the European Patent Organisation, which is an intergovernmental organisation set up by the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), an intergovernmental convention concluded in Munich in 1973.

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Question P-0762/01, which covers the same subject matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1904/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: White Paper on youth policies

In September 1999 the Commission, represented by the Commissioner responsible, announced before the European Parliament that it intended to draw up a White Paper on European Union youth policies, an initiative which was officially presented to the Council of Ministers for Youth in November 1999. This project responded to a long-standing demand made by European youth organisations, which had long been calling for a text to be drawn up which would provide youth policies with a structure at Community level.

A consultation process was held in 2000 involving European youth representatives, governments, civil society and experts in the area. The enthusiasm and expectations raised in connection with the drawing-up of the White Paper on youth policies exceeded all initial forecasts, and the Commission announced that it intended to present the White Paper in November 2001, during the Belgian presidency.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in drafting the White Paper on European Union youth policies and whether it will indeed be presented in November 2001?

Can the Commission provide information on the criteria on which the White Paper will be based and the objectives to be achieved?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1694/01, E-1733/01, E-1903/01, E-1904/01 and E-2050/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

The Commission believes that the policy of European co-operation in the youth field should be strengthened. This is why, at the end of 1999, the Commission began to draw up a White Paper on this subject at the instigation of the Member of the Commission with responsibility for Education and Culture.

The Commission wanted a hitherto unprecedented consultation process to take place beforehand: consultations with young people in each Member State in 2000, in connection with which a European-level meeting was held in Paris in October 2000; consultations with civil society organisations and academics; discussions with the Member States. This process was completed in March 2001 in Umeå, Sweden.

The Commission, now sure of the support of young people and the Member States, has since then been in the process of drawing up the White Paper, which should be published before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1529/01

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Subject: Assistance for areas along the borders with applicant countries

Under Article 87 of the Treaty on European Union, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall be incompatible with the common market.

However, with the enlargement of the EU eastwards the major regional wage and salary differentials will lead to serious economic adjustment problems in the areas bordering on the applicant countries, affecting in particular the craft sector, small and medium-sized businesses and the self-employed. These problems could be alleviated by means of a special programme of assistance for the border areas in question.

Some time ago, the Commissioner responsible for enlargement indicated that Member States and regions would accordingly be given greater latitude than is currently the case (for example, under the de minimis provisions) to provide assistance for border areas.

Have specific proposals, definitions and/or projects been put forward in the Commission and if so, what are they? If not, how does the Commission intend to resolve this problem? When is a decision likely to be made?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The Commission is elaborating a Communication on the impact of enlargement on regions bordering candidate countries and envisaged Community actions. This Communication, which was called for by the European Councils of Nice of December 2000 and Göteborg of June 2001, and which was supported by the Parliament, will analyse the economic situation of the Community's border regions. The Commission will, on the basis of this analysis, put forward proposals on how to optimise existing instruments and how to ensure better co-ordination in order to strengthen the economic competitiveness of frontier regions.

The existing regulations, guidelines and frameworks concerning State aid control, notably the Guidelines on national regional aid(1) and the Commission Regulations (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(2) and (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises(3) already offer a wide range of possibilities to Member States to award aid in order to diminish the impact of the type of problems described by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998; amended in OJ C 258, 9.9.2000.

(2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

(3) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/01

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2001)

Subject: Internet access for schools

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Member States to ensure that all schools in the Union have access to the Internet and multimedia resources by the end of 2001, and that all the teachers needed are skilled in the use of the Internet and multimedia resources by the end of 2002.

Does the Commission believe that these targets will be met, and what evidence can it supply to support its view?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2001)

The Commission is pleased to report that these ambitious targets will probably be met by most Member States.

Data facilitated by Member States for the Report Realising the European Union potential: Consolidating and extending the Lisbon Strategy(1), presented by the Commission to the Stockholm Summit, shows great progress in the connection of schools to Internet. In fact, for secondary schools, several of the Member States have already achieved a connection rate of 100 %, although the number of pupils per computer varies between countries (see attached page 19 from the above mentioned report).

As for equipment in multimedia computers and training of a sufficient number of teachers, a recent Eurobarometer survey of teachers and headteachers (soon to be published) gives reasons for optimism. European teachers seem predominantly open towards new technology and its use in teaching. 55 % of European teachers have already received training. About 7 out of 10 teachers have an Internet connection at home.

(1) COM(2001) 79.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1347/01

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Rome Convention

Will the Commission please give a definite timetable for the presentation of its porposal, and also define the nature of that proposal (i.e. Green Paper or Draft Regulation), on the Rome Convention (II) on non-contractual obligations and outline its clear intentions with regard to consultation on what is widely known to be a contentious and long-awaited proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Honourable Member raises the question of the amendment to the Rome Convention (II), concerning the possibility for laying down, at Community level, uniform rules of private international law relating to the applicable law to non-contractual obligations.

The issue of the applicable law to non-contractual obligations is a complex subject which is being carefully examined within the Commission.

The Commission has in mind in particular the problems associated with the special characteristics of electronic commerce, as raised by all the interested parties who have been expressing their views since the public hearings organised by the Commission on electronic commerce: jurisdiction and applicable law in November 1999.

Being fully aware of most of the questions at stake and of the solutions which should be brought to them, the Commission is taking the view that the appropriate way forward at this point is to proceed to present directly a proposal for a Regulation.

The proposal should indeed not affect the existing Community acquis.

The Commission will seek the views of the interested parties on the text to be drafted before its adoption as a formal proposal in the second semester 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1393/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Public investment in the Member States

Will the Commission describe the principle hurdle rate for public investment applied by each Member State government? If there is more than one hurdle rate, will it describe the rate also applied to transport infrastructure projects? Does the prospective flow of returns with which the hurdle rate is compared include social costs and benefits, and if so will the Commission provide a brief description in each case of the procedure and the key values attributed to time-savings and avoidance of deaths?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The Commission understands that the practice of many Member States for transport infrastructure investments is to discount future costs and benefits to establish a net present value rather than use a single minimum hurdle rate (cut off rate). While this approach can be used in a strictly financial analysis, the assessment framework most commonly used is that of social cost-benefit analysis. Here, capital costs are compared with maintenance, vehicle operating, time and accident costs savings. In some Member States environmental damage costs are also monetised whereas in others these and other broader impacts, such as land use or regional economic development, are often taken into account as complementary, qualitative information.

The discount rate normally applied in the cost-benefit analyses in the Member States varies between 3-8 % on real (inflation adjusted) costs and benefits.

The Member States use a wide range of definitions, modal coverage and values for time savings. Using harmonised definitions, the range provided by the EUNET(1) project is between 6,3-23 per hour (h) (1995 prices).

As regards savings from reductions in fatalities, the discrepancies in definitions and measurement among the Member States is even bigger than for time savings. The values in use range from 35 000-1 700 000 per fatality, representing a 48-fold difference. After harmonising for the definitions, the EUNET(2) project reduced this difference to a factor of 4.5 and indicated a weighted average value of 770 000 per fatality (1995 prices). The 2nd Community programme on road safety (1997-2001) introduced the criteria of 1 million for life saved.

The Commission also follows with interest the on-going work of Western European Road Directors on project evaluation and impact assessment.

(1) For more information, see final report of EUNET Socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport, Fourth framework Transport Research programme, forthcoming at http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/reports.html.

(2) For more information, see final report of EUNET Socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport, Fourth framework Transport Research programme, forthcoming at http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/reports.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0378/01

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Driving licence categories and trailers

Council Directive 91/439/EEC(1) on driving licences (the second driving licence directive) harmonised driving licence categories and subcategories.

Article 3(1) of the Directive entitles holders of driving licences for category B to drive combinations of a tractor vehicle in category B and a trailer where the maximum authorised mass of the combination does not exceed 3,500 kg and the maximum authorised mass of the trailer does not exceed the unladen mass of the tractor vehicle. For all other combinations of vehicles consisting of a tractor vehicle in category B and a trailer with a maximum mass exceeding 750 kg a driving licence for categories B+E is required.

Is the Commission aware that many users under the existing rules are towing trailers exceeding 750 kg in mass (e.g. caravans, boat trailers and horseboxes) under the 3,5 ton rule with the present category B driving licence?

What considerations are leading the Commission to abolish this rule in the review of the second driving licence directive, and in general to require a category E driving licence for trailers exceeding 750 kg?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

The Commission has made provision in its work programme for 2001 for amending Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences.

Apart from an alignment with the other licence categories, it is obvious that the weights and dimensions of certain coupled vehicle combinations currently falling within category B require greater technical skills. It is therefore logical to examine whether driving such vehicle combinations require a B+E driving licence to be held.

However, the Commission does not at this stage wish to prejudge any future decision that it might take in this connection. Very clearly this proposed amendment will be laid before the Council and Parliament in good time in accordance with the procedures in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/01

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Situation of the Uighurs in Xinjiang

According to reports by human rights organisations, the situation of the Uighurs in Xinjiang is alarming in many ways. What is the Commission's picture of the situation? In what way is the EU endeavouring to improve the situation of the Uighurs?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Union is committed to strengthening respect for human rights everywhere in the world. They represent a central issue in the Union's relations with third countries. The Commission is therefore following closely the human rights situation in China, including the situation of the mainly Islamic Uighurs who live in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. The issue is raised regularly with China in the context of the Union/China human rights dialogue.

There are over seven million Turkic speaking Uighurs in Xinjiang, which borders Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. The Chinese central authorities are worried about separatist Uighur groups and most forms of religious and cultural expression and public activity are controlled and judged for political content.

While living conditions for the majority of the Chinese population have improved in the last twenty years and economic reform and liberalisation have introduced an increased degree of freedom and self-determination for the individual there is still a wide gap between China's international commitments and the human rights situation on the ground.

A bilateral dialogue on human rights was established between the Union and China in 1996. Issues raised with China include the repression of ethnic minorities and religious freedom, repression of political dissidence, arbitrary detention conditions, and the extensive use of the death penalty. The Union has also regularly called on China to rapidly ratify the two United Nations Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and on Civil and Political Rights that China signed in 1997 and 1998. These two Covenants remain the cornerstone for improving the situation of individual rights in China. It is to be welcomed that the National People's Congress (NPC) recently decided to approve the ratification of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, albeit with some reservations, and it will now need to be implemented. The Union will continue to press for the ratification of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Union will continue to raise the issue of the situation of the Uighurs in its human rights dialogue with China and elsewhere.