ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Agreement between the European Union and Israel

1. Was an agreement signed between the EU and Israel in April 2002 which provides for mutual recognition of preclinical tests?

2. If so, exactly what provisions does it contain?

3. If so, what is the purpose of the agreement?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Agreement between the Union and Israel, to which of the Honourable Member refers, concerns the mutual recognition of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and of the respective GLP compliance monitoring programmes.

The principles of Good Laboratory Practice GLP) define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system concerned with the organisational process and the conditions under which non-clinical health and environmental safety studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, archived and reported.

The recognition of test data generated in accordance with the principles of GLP by the authorities in several countries avoids duplicative testing, is beneficial to animal welfare and reduces costs for industry and governments. Moreover, common principles for GLP facilitate the exchange of information and prevent the emergence of non-tariff barriers to trade, while contributing to the protection of human health and the environment.

The Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the Union and Israel was concluded by Council Decision 1999/662/EC of 19 July 1999 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on mutual recognition of OECD principles of good laboratory practice (GLP) and compliance monitoring programmes between the Community and the State of Israel(1) and has entered into force on 1 May 2000.

According to this agreement, the Parties shall recognise the equivalence of each other's compliance monitoring programmes on GLP based on the OECD principles of GLP and other relevant OECD documents. The Parties shall therefore accept studies and data generated by GLP compliant test facilities located on the territory of the other party and intended to be used to allow the placing on the market of all chemicals defined in the agreement.

According to Article 11(1) of the agreement, Israel shall establish a national GLP monitoring system during a transitional period of a maximum of two years, starting after the entry into force of this Agreement. According to Articles 11(2) and 11(3), the Community shall acknowledge the establishment and satisfactory entry into operation of the national GLP monitoring system in Israel before the transitional period may be terminated.

Since Israel has fulfilled the requirement, the Commission has acknowledged this by Commission Decision 2002/227/EC of 13 March 2002 on the acknowledgement of the establishment and satisfactory entry into operation of the Israeli good laboratory practice (GLP) monitoring system(2). On this basis, the MRA with Israel on GLP entered into its operational phase on 1 May 2002.

(1) OJ L 263, 9.10.1999.

(2) OJ L 75, 16.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2299/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Explanations regarding the reply to Written Question E-1187/02 concerning the possible involvement of the Vatican in agricultural fraud

From the reply of 2 July 2002 given to Written Question E-1187/02(1) concerning the possible involvement of the Vatican in agricultural fraud, it would appear that the EU anti-fraud office OLAF has decided not to open an investigation, on the grounds that it has no information on the matter.

In the light of the above:

- Why did OLAF decide not to open an investigation; does this mean that OLAF did not inform the Guardia di Finanza (the Italian tax and customs police) and/or the Italian judiciary of the matter?

- Is the Commission or OLAF aware that 800 tonnes of butter were exported to the Vatican by an Austrian dairy?

- In this specific case, were export subsidies granted, and if so, what was the amount of those subsidies?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 81.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2002)

The Commission has been provided with the following information by OLAF regarding the questions of the Honourable Member:

1. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has contacted the Italian authorities. On the basis of the information given by Italy and in light of the Italian-Vatican customs agreement governing the Community trade with the Vatican, OLAF has considered that there are no grounds to start an enquiry.

2. Yes.

3. Based on information received from the Austrian authorities, between 1996 and 2002 export refunds in the total amount of EUR 1 544 079 were paid for a total quantity of 898,2 tons of butter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Motorcycle helmets and fines in Greece

Recently, the Greek authorities have been imposing fines and impounding motorcycles ridden by drivers not wearing helmets. However, Greek motorcyclists protest that the cost of a safe, good quality helmet is between EUR 300 and EUR 600 in Greece mainly because of the high level of duty and taxes imposed by the Greek authorities.

What is the Commission's view of the level of Greek duties and taxes on helmets? What is the precise amount of tax levied in the other 14 Member States of the Union?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

To reply to the Honourable Member's question, the Commission has conducted a survey of Member States besides Greece. Two types of taxation generally apply to motorcycle helmets: VAT and customs duties.

Apart from the United Kingdom, which applies a zero rate of VAT, all the other Member States apply a normal rate, i.e.: Luxembourg 15 %; Germany and Spain 16 %; Portugal 17 %; Greece 18 %; Netherlands 19 %; France 19,6 %; Italy and Austria 20 %; Belgium and Ireland 21 % (but zero in Ireland for children's helmets); Finland 22 %; Sweden and Denmark 25 %.

Application of the normal rate is compatible with the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC(1), which also has a clause allowing zero rates to be provisionally maintained subject to certain conditions.

For customs duties, the non-preferential rate applied to imports of products under codes 6506 10 10 (safety headgear made of plastic) and 6506 10 80 (safety headgear made of other materials) is 2,7 %.

It should also be noted that, under preferential agreements and tariff concession arrangements, imports of the products concerned from most of our partners qualify for exemption from customs duties (0 %).

Since the above autonomous or preferential tariff measures derive from Community legislation, needless to say they are uniformly applicable by all Member States whenever these products are imported into EU customs territory.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-over taxes common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/02

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

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Arrest of Tibetan boy

Is the Commission aware that the twelve-year-old Tibetan boy Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has been imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for political reasons?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Chinese authorities for clarification of their motives for imprisoning this Tibetan boy?

What steps can the Commission take to protect children from human rights violations of this kind in China?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The EU is aware that the Chinese authorities in Tibet identified Gyaltsen Norbu as Panchen Lama at Tashilhunpo monastery, Shigatse, on 8 December 1996, after rejecting the Dalai Lama's choice, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who has been living since then with his family in an unknown location.

The EU continues to stress that China should respect international standards and instruments with regard to minority rights and is very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet. The EU raises the issue regularly in our interactions with the Chinese authorities, including at the highest level and during regular meetings of the EU-China human rights dialogue. We emphasise the need for China to respect cultural and linguistic rights, religious freedoms and the protection of minorities in Tibet. We also ask for direct dialogue between the Beijing authorities and the Dalai Lama, and access for an independent delegation to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.

The EU is committed to respecting childrens' rights and supports the approach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that children are fully citizens and fully human persons, and that they are able to understand their own needs and interests. For this reason, they must be allowed to express their thoughts and have their opinions taken into account.

In conjunction with local NGOs, the Commission has, at present, two projects in operation concerning childrens' health and welfare in several communities throughout China.

The Commission has also established, as a new initiative, a Human Rights Small Projects Facility administered by the EC Delegation in Beijing. In this context, the EC Delegation is currently assessing several co-operation projects aimed at improving child welfare and protecting children's rights in China.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Taxation of pleasure boats in Greece

According to a report in Agence Europe (bulletin of 24 July 2002), the Commission has decided to bring proceedings against Greece in the Court of Justice for imposing

a special tax on private pleasure boats entering Greek territorial waters. The same source reports that the Greek Parliament adopted a law in 1999 imposing such a tax on vessels of 7 metres or more in length which enter Greek waters and have no permanent mooring in any Greek port.

Is this information correct? What sanctions might be taken against Greece in the event of a Court ruling against that country? Which other Member States impose similar taxation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

It is correct that the Commission has initiated proceedings against Greece on account of its tax law. While the Commission has not been informed of similar rules in force in other Member States, it has been notified of a provision under Greek tax law levying a tax on private pleasure craft of more than 7 metres in length entering Greek waters. According to the Commission's interpretation, this constitutes a tax with equivalent effect which is prohibited by the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 23 and 25.

Once the Court of Justice has delivered its judgment and if that judgment supports the Commission's interpretation, the Commission will open a dialogue with Greece in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the EC Treaty for infringements of Community law. That dialogue is intended to enable a process of reform of the national tax law. On completion of the reform, the Commission will re-examine the Greek legislation and decide whether it is compatible with Community law.

A press release of 23 July 2002(1) is attached for the Honourable Member's attention, describing the legal thinking behind the Commission's decision to take Greece to Court over its tax on pleasure boats.

(1) IP/02/1120.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2678/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL)and Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Continuation of peaceful solutions to the long-lasting conflict in the Philippines by avoiding outlawing non-terrorist organisations

1. Does the Council recall the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 January 1999 on the human rights situation in the Philippines(1), reaffirming the resolution of 13 December 1990 in which the European Parliament encouraged and supported peace negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), and requested the Commission and the Council to provide and facilitate support and assistance to the parties in carrying out their formal peace negotiations and in undertaking development, relief and rehabilitation programmes and projects to lay the ground for a just and lasting peace?

2. Did the Council take note of the statement of 3 September 2002 by the Negotiation Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines entitled Why the CPP and NPA are not terrorist organisations?

3. What action do you intend to take in order to avoid a situation in which the NDFP and the organisations belonging to it (the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army), or persons who have responsibilities inside the NDFP, CPP or NPA, are included on any list of terrorist organisations issued by the United Nations Organisation Sanctions Committee or the European Union, an action which could prevent a speedy and peaceful solution to this long-lasting conflict?

(1) OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 116.

Reply

(18 February 2003)

1. The Council has taken note of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 January 1999 on the human rights situation in the Philippines.

2. The Council has not discussed the statement of 3 September 2002 by the Negotiation Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines entitled Why the CPP and NPA are not terrorist organisations.

3. Following an in-depth examination of the information available in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2002/931/CFSP, the Council has decided to include the New Peoples' Army and its leader Jose Maria Sison in its latest update(1) of the list of persons or organisations to which the measures set out in Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.

(1) Common Position 2002/847/CFSP, OJ L 295, 30.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2525/02

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Reorganisation of the Enterprise DG's Innovation Directorate

Can the Commission provide details of its plans for the reorganisation of the Innovation Directorate of the Directorate-General for Enterprise?

In particular, are there plans to transfer units between Brussels and Luxembourg? If so, which units?

Are there plans to transfer units to other institutions or departments? If so, which units?

Are there plans to abolish any A-grade posts? If so, which posts?

Are the measures planned consistent with the decisions of the Member States' governments of 8 April 1965 and the Commission's commitments to the Luxembourg authorities?

Reply given by M. Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

As announced in the policy paper Future of the Luxembourg site presented by the Commission in January 2001, the Commission is re-examining in depth the organisation including the location of certain departments based in Luxembourg such as the Innovation Directorate of Directorate General (DG) Enterprise.

In making this examination, the Commission works on the basis of the guidelines set out in the 2001 policy paper:

- to consolidate the Luxembourg site as one of the Commission's seats;

- to establish a link between the setting up of new activities in Luxembourg and the transfer of small units to Brussels; these changes should be determined in such a way as to maximise the operational efficiency of the Commission's departments while keeping both budgetary costs and, above all, the transfer of persons to a minimum; provisions should be established to provide

relevant professional advice and support for staff who may be affected by changes relating to Luxembourg; in any case, these changes can only take place after negotiations with the Luxembourg authorities, the conclusion of an overall agreement set out in clear and unequivocal terms, and concertation with the trade unions and professional organisations;

- to take particular account of the existence of multicultural educational and social structures;

- to consult formally with the trade unions and professional organisations, as well as generally with the staff, about the development of a strategic approach to the Luxembourg site;

- to continue the dialogue between the Luxembourg authorities and the community institutions, in particular with regard to administrative aspects and the physical conditions of the departments located in Luxembourg.

No decision has yet been taken. The Commission meanwhile reaffirms its engagement in innovation policy in the context of improving the competitiveness of European enterprises. The Commission therefore fully endorsed the importance accorded by the 6th Framework Programme to the role of innovation in construction of the European research area. At present, the Commission is reflecting on how best to organise the Innovation Directorate for even more successful management of this policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2205/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Price disparity in the travel sector

When air fares are being booked within the EU (to EU and non-EU destinations), the price for the same flight(s), using the same booking facilities, often varies according to the country in which the payee is domiciled or where the booking is made.

When booking with a ferry company in the EU, customers are asked if they are resident in the country in which they are making the booking and are sometimes asked for an address.

Could the Commission state whether this practice contravenes EU policy and could be classed as a barrier to competition?

Could the Commission outline what steps are being taken to investigate the legality of this practice, how widespread it is within the travel sector, and what is being done to put an end to it?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The pricing practices described by the Honourable Member might, in certain specific circumstances, constitute an infringement of European competition rules.

If a company limited some of its fare offers purely on the basis of the payee's country or residence, it would effectively be charging different prices for identical services. In certain circumstances, this might be incompatible with European competition rules. This would be the case if the company had a dominant position on the route in question, if transport companies had agreed between themselves to apply a pricing policy of this type or if a transport company prevented its distributors from selling a certain category of ticket outside the Member State in which they were based.

The Commission is carrying out a careful examination of these practices. In the airline industry, it is looking into the rules of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) governing the conditions which travel agents must satisfy in order to gain IATA accreditation and to issue tickets on that basis. In the maritime sector, it has on several occasions examined pricing and reservation practices

of the type described by the Honourable Member. Responding to concerns raised by a consumer, it recently scrutinised the pricing practices of a cross-Channel ferry operator to ensure that they did not infringe European competition rules.

It should also be noted that, in some cases, transport companies operating between two Member States may not be allowed, by virtue of differences in national laws on promotional sales, to make a special offer available to customers in one of those Member States. As a result of these differences in national legislation, potential customers in the Member States with the most restrictive laws may be discriminated against. The Commission adopted in October 2001 a proposal for a harmonisation Regulation that would abolish restrictions on the value of bonuses and reductions and replace them with transparency requirements ensuring that consumers are properly informed of the nature of such promotional offers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3490/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR), Imelda Read (PSE), Phillip Whitehead (PSE),Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE)and Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Eligibility of county councils for funding under the EU town-twinning programme

Due to the differences between the structure of local government in the UK and in continental Europe it appears that county councils are not eligible to receive EU funding for twinning activities under Action A because they are not considered to be municipalities, whereas European municipalities currently do receive these funds. However county councils are not only direct providers of services, but are also heavily involved in twinning activities.

Can the Commission make allowances for the differences between the local government structures in the UK and those in continental Europe and ensure that UK county councils can become eligible for EU twinning funds?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

The town-twinning scheme is based on Budget line A-321. According to the budgetary comments the credit is targeted to promote twinnings between towns in the Union as well as twinnings between towns in the Union and towns in the candidate countries.

The current procedure for town-twinning grants is that of a call for proposals, published annually in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Currently, two kinds of actions are funded under the scheme:

(a) meetings of citizens of twinned towns and municipalities,

(b) conferences on European themes relating to twinning, and training and information seminars for town-twinning officers.

Part a is aimed at contributing directly to meetings of citizens between towns and municipalities. Consequently, it is targeted exclusively to towns and municipalities, and not to secondary tiers of local government (such as County Councils in the UK or in Sweden or Kreise in Germany).

Part b of the scheme is aimed at contributing more indirectly to twinning arrangements by involving key multipliers from towns and municipalities in thematic and training events. Consequently, it is also targeted at various organisations involved in these activities (local and regional authorities, associations and federations of local authorities). This category also provides the secondary tiers of local government with proper opportunities to benefit from the twinning scheme.

The Commission is aware of the diversity concerning the structures of local government in Europe. All Member States are treated on the same basis and British counties are not disadvantaged in comparison to equivalent structures in other Member States.