ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1977/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribers

According to 'Dagens Nyheter' of 1 July 1996, Swedish mobile telephone subscribers are being charged double VAT as many EU Member States are failing to comply with the relevant directive in respect of the repayment of VAT to Telia, the Swedish national telephone company. Telia is therefore deducting both foreign VAT on mobile telephone services and Swedish VAT calculated on the entire amount, the call charges plus the foreign VAT.

Does the Commission regard this double charging by Telia as compatible with EU rules? What steps does the Commission intend to take to persuade all Member States to comply with the directives in force so that Swedish mobile telephone subscribers no longer have to pay double VAT on calls made abroad?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The common VAT system does not give rise to double taxation within the Community. This is avoided either by deduction or by refund in accordance with the 8th Directive on arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (79/1072/EEC). ((OJ L 331, 27.12.1979. ))

Since the system was introduced, the Commission has taken particular care to ensure that refund procedures abide by the six-month deadline laid down in the Directive and do not unduly put up firms' costs. It has on several occasions started infringement procedures when deadlines were systematically missed, and this led to such practices being censured. (See cases C-287/91 and C-16/95). The Commission therefore wishes to encourage the plaintiffs to send it any details that might be useful in examining any infringements.

The Commission wishes to stress, however, that this problem no longer arises under the new VAT arrangements, which are based on the principle of taxation at origin. Under this system, the tax is deducted by the person liable who sets it off against the amount of the tax payable, independently of where the deductible tax was paid. Any specific refund procedure falling within the 8th VAT Directive is therefore null and void.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/96 by Martin Schulz (PSE) and Jutta Haug (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Fuel for Commission vehicles at Shell garages

The inhuman policy of the Nigerian government towards the Ogoni people - a policy made possible only with the help of the Shell Group - has already been condemned on a number of occasions by the European Parliament. The governments of a number of European countries have therefore advocated a boycott of Shell.

Do official Commission vehicles obtain fuel from Shell garages, or is there any guarantee that the opposite is the case?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behaf of the Commission (26 September 1996)

Since 1 January 1996, the Commission vehicles no longer use Shell petrol, in line with the results of a tender for the provision of fuel issued the previous year.

The Commission continues to examine, in concert with the Member States, its policy towards Nigeria. The Union established a common position on Nigeria in November 1995, containing a number of provisions. These remain in application until 4 December 1996. They do not cover fuel products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/96 by Claude Desama (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Opening of municipal, rail and regional public transport markets

It now seems that the Commission will shortly open municipal, suburban and regional transport markets to competition in the near future. Does it intend to require applicants to provide a public service?

If so, what will those services be and how does the Commission intend to ensure that they are actually provided? How will the public services be financed?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

In its Green Paper 'The Citizens' Network' ((COM(95) 601. )), the Commission presented its thoughts on the current development of passenger transport in the Community and, inter alia, made reference to the regulatory framework, particularly as it relates to urban, suburban and regional public transport. Without a final position being taken on the subject, the Commission stated its intention to examine how Community-wide open tendering concessions for the provision of urban and regional passenger services could be promoted. With regard to the domestic transport of passengers, the Commission repeatedly stressed the need to allow Member States to guarantee the principle of public service.

Council Regulation (EEC) 1191/69 ((OJ L 156, 28.6.1969. )) as amended by Council Regulation n° 1893/91 ((OJ L 169, 29.6.1991. )) details the concept of obligation inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway in conformity with Article 77 of the EC Treaty. The latter Regulation, in Article 1.4, establishes the possibility for Member States to conclude public service contracts with a transport company to guarantee sufficient transport services. Currently Article 1.1 establishes the possibility for Member States to exclude from the scope of the Regulation any undertakings whose activities are confined exclusively to the operation of urban, suburban or regional services. As mentioned in its Green Paper, the Commission intends to review the scope of this general derogation with a view to ensuring the appropriate financial and managerial incentives for these undertakings to improve services and to render them more efficient. Public service contracts to ensure such incentives should cover, inter alia, the price of the services agreed between the public authority and the transport undertaking and could fit in with possible tendering of concessions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1797/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Employment in the energy sector

Does the Commission think that it should take into account the consequences of the internal market for electricity for employment in the energy sector at its extraordinary meeting? If not, can the Commission explain why not?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The primary objective for completing the internal market, including the internal market for electricity, is to create growth and competitiveness in order to ensure a high level of employment for European citizens. European industry currently faces a disadvantage of up to 50% in terms of energy costs in comparison to the United States. At the level of the Community, the Commission is confident that the creation of the internal market will have a positive effect on employment. That is why the realisation of the internal electricity market forms part of the Commission's proposal for a European employment initiative.

The Commission did not hold an extraordinary meeting on the subject of the internal electricity market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Support for childcare in the ERDF

When did the Commission take a specific initiative in relation to increasing support for parents' employment through increased support for childcare within the ERDF and can the Commission quantify the results of this initiative?

Which Commission official or officials is (are) responsible for evaluating Community Support Frameworks and Single Programming Documents in this respect, and what policy guidance and training are they given to undertake this task?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1996)

The European Regional Development Fund may provide support for setting up crêches or other child or dependant care facilities, particularly where these are for training centres or form part of a company's welfare arrangements. However, it is mainly the European Social Fund, inter alia through the Community's Now initiative, which supports childcare measures (e.g. training personnel for early childhood centres and bearing the costs of childcare places for women taking training courses).

A third of the appropriations for Now for the 1991-92 period, i.e. some 50 MECU out of a total budget of 153 MECU, have been set aside for financing childcare measures. And in Objective 1 regions the ERDF recently provided significant additional funding for welfare facilities which, until then, were rather thin on the ground. Although the size of the contribution was emphasised in the Now initiative evaluation reports, it is not very easy to state exactly how much the ERDF has contributed to this type of operation because the facilities in question have always been part of larger projects.

Nevertheless the equal opportunities dimension is now always taken into account in the general evaluation of structural fund contributions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2016/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Transfer of small and medium-sized enterprises

The answer given by the Commission to Question E-235/96 ((OJ C 137, 8.5.1996, p. 50. )) on the rules applicable to the transfer of small and medium-sized enterprises states that the Commission has been able to observe that several Member States have already adopted a certain number of measures. However, no details of these measures are given.

Can the Commission explain clearly and in detail what measures have been adopted by the Member States in connection with the transfer of small and medium-sized enterprises and which Member States have adopted such measures?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1996)

The information which the Commission currently holds on national measures taken regarding the transfer of enterprises is either too specific or incomplete for a cohesive report to be published. Much of this information also emanates from informal sources and is still awaiting formal confirmation by all the Member States.

At this point in time, the Commission is, therefore, reluctant to anticipate the official report expected from the Member States. The 31st of December 1996 is in fact the deadline accorded to the Member States for communicating to the Commission the text of the main provisions adopted to implement the Commission recommendation of 7 December 1994 on the transfer of small and medium-sized enterprises ((OJ L 385, 31 December 1994. )).

After this deadline, the Commission will draw up a summary report of all the legislative and administrative measures taken by the Member States for this purpose. This report will then be discussed with all the parties concerned at a conference to be organised at the beginning of 1997. The aim of this conference will be to evaluate the progress made by the Member States and to determine best practices in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Entitlements for outdoor market traders

What is the Commission's position on rules governing outdoor market trading within the EU, particularly relating to holiday entitlements and sickness rights?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)

The rights of people working in outdoor market trading depend on their employment status. With regard to holiday entitlements, where those working in outdoor market trading are considered to be employees as defined by national law, the following provisions are relevant:

- Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship ((OJ L 288, 18.10.1991. )) lays down that the employer has to inform the employee of the amount of paid leave to which the employee is entitled or of the procedures for allocating and determining such leave.

- Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )) provides that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks.

With regard to sickness rights, there are no Community provisions regulating the material content of these rights. The co-ordination of social security legislation is regulated by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, codified version OJ C 325, 10.12.1992. )). This Regulation applies to both self-employed and employees and their families moving within the Community. However, as the Court of justice has emphasised many times, Member States are free to determine the characteristics of their own social security systems - including what kind of sickness benefits are available and the rules on entitlement to such benefits - as long as there is no discrimination on the ground of nationality.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0028/96 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Council (19 January 1996)

Subject: Timescales for purification of mussels

Is the Council aware that Member States and third countries operate different timescales for purification of mussels? What steps is the Council taking to harmonize this within the single market, and what evidence is available that varying water qualities and temperatures affect the amount of purification needed?

Reply (19 November 1996)

1. The Council is not aware of the timescales for purifications of mussels in Member States and third countries.

2. Directive 91/492/EEC ((OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 1. )) lays down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluses. These include requirements for purification of shellfish, but do not specify timescales. These are matters for Member States who will need to take account of a number of relevant factors.

3. Article 13 of Directive 79/923/EEC ((OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47. )) on the quality required of shellfish waters specifies that any information necessary for the application of that Directive must be forwarded to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/96 by Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Revision of customs tariffs in the precious metals sector with a view to protecting Italian and European goldsmiths

Customs tariffs have a very strong impact on the profitability of goldsmiths.

The final act of the Uruguay Round, which was signed in Marrakesh, did not produce the desired results for the precious metals sector, given that it brought only a minor reduction in the customs tariffs which the main importing countries may apply to European products.

The European precious metal sector's main commercial opportunities derive from the reductions made in the industrialized nations.

The reductions made are far from reciprocal (-30% by the EU as against -15% by the USA) and, over the past few years, the share of the US market held by Italian and European products has fallen by more than 20%.

Given the above, would the Commission not agree that it should take steps to:

1. safeguard jobs in the sector, where lay-offs are already a fact of life;

2. prevent the probable transfer of production facilities to non-Community countries which are at an advantage; and

3. renegotiate the customs tariffs applying to the sector, either as part of the bilateral talks already in progress (the USA Transatlantic Business Dialogue) or at multilateral level (WTO - revision of the Uruguay Round at the Singapore Conference in December 1996)?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (29 October 1996)

The Commission is seeking to improve the access of Community industry to the markets of its trading partners. The guiding principles of such a strategy are contained in the Commission communication entitled 'The global challenge of international trade: A market access strategy for the European Union' ((COM(96) 53. )). In the spirit of the communication, the Commission has made contacts with the European jewelers associations, with a view to seeking improvements in the access to the Community's major export markets for their jewellery products.

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member both with respect to employment and relocation of manufacturing activities outside the Community and will bear in mind the importance of seeking improvements at multilateral level in the present tariff situation. Furthermore, the Commission deems it important that, in the context of the Transatlantic business dialogue, the interested parties raise this question in the appropriate issue group dealing with trade liberalization, including tariffs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Moves by te Junta de Andalucía to exclude the municipalities of Sanlúcar de Barrameda and Trebujena from the Doñana Regional Coordination Plan

Ecological organizations in Andalusia have protested against moves by the Junta de Andalucía to exclude the municipalities of Sanlúcar de Barrameda and Trebujena from the Doñana Regional Coordination Plan, claiming that this is a manoeuvre to allow the construction of a luxury housing development on the land known as 'Loma de Martín Miguel'. This development might be compared to the controversial 'Costa Doñana' plan.

Given that the Doñana II Programme is now being implemented with an EC contribution of more than ECU 40 m, in addition to the extraordinary grant of ECU 105 m for the period 1994-97 agreed at the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, what information does the Commission have on any such action and would it be compatible with the Doñana Regional Plan?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/96 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Commission action on intercultural education

According to the remarks against Line B3-1001 of the EU 1996 General Budget, ECU 5 m is intended for the 'education of children of migrant workers, as well as children of occupational travellers, travellers and gypsies; and intercultural education' (Chapter II, Action 2 of the Socrates programme).

Can the Commission say what action it has taken in this area?

What are the financial commitments and actual expenditure with regard to this budget line?

Has the Commission taken account of the intercultural education initiatives which predated the Socrates programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

Pursuant to Article 4 of Parliament and Council Decision 819/95/EC (14 March 1995) ((OJ L 87, 20.4.1995. )) and in consonance with the opinion of the Socrates Committee delivered at its meeting of 28 and 29 February 1996, the Commission has prepared a work plan and the budgetary allocations for the current year. Hence the budget allocated to Socrates Action II in Chapter II (intercultural education, education of the children of migrant workers, as well as the children of occupational travellers, travellers and gypsies) is 6 million ecus, broken down in two instalments earmarked partly for the new projects and partly for the 1995 multiannual projects, subject to renewal on 1 September 1996.

At 1 March 1996 the national agencies had approved and submitted to the Commission 68 new projects for a total budget of 3.8 million ecus. The Commission, in line with the opinion delivered by the 'School Education' sub-committee at its meeting of 28 June 1996 approved and financed 42 projects for a total budget of 1.64 million ecus. Moreover, by common accord with the Socrates Committee, the Commission financed the renewal of three projects submitted by European associations for a total budget of 865 000 ecus.

In 1995 the Commission selected and financed 166 projects for a total of 5.45 million ecus out of 239 projects submitted by the members of the ad hoc group, representing initiatives launched before adoption of the Socrates Programme. Since most of the projects were multiannual ones the Commission estimates that at 1 September 1996 over 100 projects will be submitted for renewal, representing a total demand for funding that exceeds the amount of 3.5 million ecus reserved for this purpose.

The Commission is directly forwarding to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of the Parliament a list of projects financed by the Commission in 1995 and at the first expiry date in 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/96 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Conservation of red tuna stocks in the Mediterranean

A number of French seine fishing vessels are putting severe pressure on the red tuna stocks off the Valencian coast, even during the spawning season. Seine fishing is, in addition, of dubious efficiency, as the wounds inflicted lead to large numbers of discards.

This points, essentially, to a conflict of powers which could be resolved by the forthcoming publication of a regulation on the conservation of fish stocks in the Mediterranean, in line with ICCAT recommendations.

The activity of the French fishing vessels is endangering the activity of local fishermen along the Valencian coast, who use much more respectful techniques, and is even putting the survival of the species at risk.

Does the Commission, accordingly, intend to place restrictions on seine fishing for red tuna in the Mediterranean?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The Commission is anxious to preserve the future of red tuna fishing in the Mediterranean and is therefore keen to see effective management of these fisheries. The priority, according to all scientific opinion, is to protect juveniles. Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean prohibits the landing and sale of undersized red tuna. ((OJ L 171, 6 July 1994. )) Furthermore, as indicated in its proposal for the fourth multiannual guidance programme, the Commission wants a very strict regulation of catch capacity and fishing efforts in the red tuna sector in order to relieve the pressure on stocks.

The Commission believes that it is crucial that these measures be implemented in full. It does not, however, believe that purse seining, which is widely used in large-scale fisheries - in the tropics, for example - is itself to be blamed.