ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0333/00

by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Rules governing the award of public contracts

1. What rules does the Commission intend to adopt to protect national labour markets from social dumping in connection with the award of public contracts?

2. What is the Commission's assessment of the national laws on the posting of workers and what political action does it consider should be taken in the light of experience hitherto?

3. Does the Commission intend to take measures to stem the proliferation of pseudo-independent businesses?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

1. The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member, with regard to the transnational context, that on 16 December 1996 the Council and Parliament adopted Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(1). In terms of Community employment law, it is this Directive which, through the protection it provides for workers, makes the most significant contribution towards establishing fair competition among businesses. It lays down a nucleus of mandatory rules on minimum protection to be observed in the host country by employers who post workers to perform temporary work in the territory of a Member State where services are provided. The Directive applies without distinction to the public and private sectors.

2. The deadline for incorporation of Directive 96/71/EC into national law was 16 December 1999. In view of this date, and taking account of a number of delays in communicating national laws, it would appear to be too early for an assessment of experience hitherto.

3. For the moment the Commission does not intend to take measures in this connection.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, pp. 1-6.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0475/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community

Is the Commission aware that as of this moment more than 180 Members of the European Parliament have signed the following motion:

Mindful of the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) as amended by Protocol No 11 requiring that no-one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national and that no-one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national, and mindful of the incorporation of those rights under Article 6 of the Common Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the following undersigned Members of the European Parliament call upon the Governments of Austria, Greece and Italy to honour their Treaty commitments by restoring to the former royal houses of their respective countries full civil rights, including the right to enter freely without let or hindrance their countries of origin, without any further delay, and request that where such rights have not been restored by 1 January 2000 the European Court initiate proceedings against any offending state?

Given that under the terms of the Treaty there is no basis for discrimination against individual families, having regard to the provisions of Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community dealing respectively with the free movement of persons, services and capital and the right of establishment, given that Prince Victor Emmanuel has not been permitted to visit his homeland for 53 years or his son ever to set foot on Italian soil, and given that although the aforementioned rights are not conditional Otto von Habsburg was required to sign

away fundamental civil rights before being allowed to settle in Austria, and following the Commission's specific undertaking last week to monitor Treaty violations in Austria, will the Commission make a start on ending these blatant and long-standing violations of the Convention and European law by using the powers with which it is entrusted under the European treaties to bring proceedings against Austria before the European Court of Justice without delay, and, given the importance of upholding the treaties, send a copy of its decision to Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-2703/97 by Mr Florio(1).

(1) OJ C 60, 25.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0032/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Nuclear threat of Akkuyu

Further to previous questions and ahead of Turkey's final decision on the construction of a nuclear plant in the earthquake-prone region of Akkuyu, Canadian Federal MPs opposed

to Canada's intention to supply Turkey with nuclear reactors have made public the following further reasons for their position:

- the financial burden on Canada of a 1,5 billion dollar loan to Turkey,

- the possibility of Akkuyu developing into a second Chernobyl which will pose a serious threat to the lives of 144 million people in the eastern Mediterranean,

- the fundamental fear of providing Turkey with the means of manufacturing nuclear weapons through related technology, as occurred with India and Pakistan.

Furthermore, recent studies by eminent seismologists, such as Karl Buckthought of the Earthquake Forecasts Incorporation, conclude that there is a 50 % probability of a Richter Scale 7 earthquake occurring within the next 40 years which will completely destroy the reactor with the loss of millions of human lives.

In the light of the above and the new circumstances created by the recent disastrous earthquakes, in what manner will the Commission intervene to enable Turkey to acquire the financial means to develop renewable energy sources and to call off the construction of the nuclear plant?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-781/99 by Mr Souladakis during question time at Parliament's January 2000 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (January 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0929/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Set aside premiums for the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun

1. Is it the case that the German firms RWE and Rheinbraun have received EU set aside premiums for brown coal mining?

2. If so, what sums have been paid, in accordance with what legal basis and for what period?

3. If so, were these one-off payments, or are they continuing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0667/00.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question(1).

(1) See page 218.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0158/00

by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Adulteration of edible oils: illicit mixing of olive-oil with hazel-nut oil

Italian olive-oil producers are alarmed at the increase in illicit mixing of olive-oil with hazel-nut oil.

Because of its chemical composition and organoleptic characteristics, which are similar to those of olive-oil, and its low price, about half the price of olive-oil, hazel-nut oil lends itself particularly well to adulteration of consumer products.

Hazel-nut oil is not specifically identified in the Combined Nomenclature (CN), but falls under the catch-all heading 15 15 9059. Importers are thus permitted to market the oil and designate it in customs papers by the wording crude seed oil or crude vegetable oil.

To reduce olive-oil adulteration, could the Commission:

1. allow hazel-nut oil to be identified as such by a specific CN code, as is the case for coconut oil, palm-kernel oil, and the like; and, in any event,

2. impose a ban to prevent hazel-nut oil being marketed under generic names such as crude vegetable oil or crude seed oil which have been used to date?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his written question on olive oil/hazelnut oil mixtures. This is a serious problem, difficult to resolve because the chemical characteristics of hazelnut oil make it difficult to detect with current methods. Such mixtures are not harmful to human health but have serious implications for the image of olive oil and its market.

New analysis methods that would be better at detecting the presence of hazelnut oil in olive oils are at present being tested. In the meantime the Commission will examine the Honourable Member's suggestion for a specific Combined Nomenclature heading for hazelnut oil. While not totally resolving the problem this might well help reduce the fraud risk.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Nuclear threat of Akkuyu

Further to previous questions and ahead of Turkey's final decision on the construction of a nuclear plant in the earthquake-prone region of Akkuyu, Canadian Federal MPs opposed to Canada's intention to supply Turkey with nuclear reactors have made public the following further reasons for their position:

- the financial burden on Canada of a 1,5 billion dollar loan to Turkey,

- the possibility of Akkuyu developing into a second Chernobyl which will pose a serious threat to the lives of 144 million people in the eastern Mediterranean,

- the fundamental fear of providing Turkey with the means of manufacturing nuclear weapons through related technology, as occurred with India and Pakistan.

Furthermore, recent studies by eminent seismologists, such as Karl Buckthought of the Earthquake Forecasts Incorporation, conclude that there is a 50 % probability of a Richter Scale 7 earthquake occurring within the next 40 years which will completely destroy the reactor with the loss of millions of human lives.

In the light of the above and the new circumstances created by the recent disastrous earthquakes, in what manner will the Council intervene to enable Turkey to acquire the financial means to develop renewable energy sources and to call off the construction of the nuclear plant?

Reply

(16 March 2000)

The Council is well aware of the importance of nuclear safety in third countries and has initiated a series of actions, in particular through assistance programmes. On 7 December 1998, the Council adopted conclusions on nuclear safety in the context of the enlargement of the European Union(1) which give a clear message to candidate countries on the importance to be given to nuclear safety.

The Council shares the views of the Honourable Parliamentarian on the need to promote the development of renewable energy sources. In this context, it underlines that the promotion of renewable sources of energy in countries of the Mediterranean regions, including Turkey, is mainly ensured through cooperation within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and its principal financial instrument, the MEDA Programme, and through the SYNERGY Programme, which is one of the specific programmes in the international field within the multiannual Framework Programme for actions in the energy sector(2).

Both Programmes provide for actions which contribute to the achievement of the objectives of energy policy: security of supply, competitiveness and protection of the environment and have particular components for the development of renewable energy sources. The implementation of these Programmes is the responsibility of the Commission.

(1) Doc. 13677/98 (Presse 431-G).

(2) OJ L 7, 13.1.1999, p. 16.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Exclusion from the right to deduct VAT on cars in Austria

In Austria it is not possible to deduct VAT on passenger cars and estate cars; this results in blatant distortion of competition for Austrian undertakings compared with other Member States.

The section of the Commission's proposal for a directive COM(98) 377 final(1) covering the harmonisation of provisions on expenditure not eligible for deduction of the full VAT, as amended by the European Parliament, should therefore be implemented immediately.

Furthermore, the abolition of the VAT refund procedure under this proposal for a directive is to be welcomed because the procedure is extremely costly in virtually all Member States and, in view of the length of time it takes up to 5 years and the costs involved, it is having a damaging effect on the economy of the Union.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the changes to Directive 77/388/EEC(2) proposed in COM(98) 377 final or the proposal for a regulation can be implemented rapidly?

Is the Commission thinking of bringing forward the second part of proposal COM(98) 377 final concerning exclusions from the right of deduction, since what is involved is merely the modernisation and uniform application of the existing VAT system, but in a way that will reduce distortions of competition in the internal market?

(1) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998, p. 16.

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

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the rules governing the right to deduct value added tax, to which the Honourable Member refers, was sent to the Council by the Commission for adoption on 17 June 1998. It could provide a genuine response to the problems raised.

Under Article 93 (ex-Article 99) of the EC Treaty, adoption of this proposal requires the Council's unanimous agreement. The proposal is currently still on the table of a Council technical working party and no agreement has yet been reached on its adoption.

The attempts to reach a compromise in the Council have the Commission's full support. Nevertheless, it wishes to ensure that any compromise reached is in line with the aims of its proposal.

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the proposal is in two parts: first, the approximation of national rules relating to expenditure not eligible for a full deduction; and second, the introduction of a cross-border right of deduction to replace the refund procedure laid down in the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country(1).

The Commission considers both parts of the proposal of equal importance. The need for them to be separated has not yet arisen in the course of the discussions in the Council.

(1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0228/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Breach of the rules of competition in the selling of pet food in Spain

Illegal and unfair competition is currently occurring in Spain in the marketing and sale of pet foods, with the rights of consumers being infringed. Pet food manufacturers

are operating separate distribution channels for supermarkets on the one hand and small retailers on the other. As a result, small businesses in the sector have been severely affected, since advertising and special offers for pet foods are being provided only to supermarkets, so that small retailers are unable to pass on these benefits to their customers.

This discrimination is exacerbated by the fact that manufacturers are offering supermarkets generally lower purchase prices for pet foods than small shops. This can be seen from the fact that small retailers are not properly informed of special offers, which means that the prices they charge are higher than those charged by supermarkets. As a result, consumers are choosing to shop at supermarkets and neglecting the small shops in their neighbourhood, causing many of them to close down.

Complaints have been made to the Spanish authorities about this unfair competition, since Spanish law does not allow goods to be sold at below cost price in the way that is occurring in the pet food sector.

Will the Commission examine, within the sphere of its responsibilities, whether the case in question also involves breaches of Community legislation on trade and competition?

Does it not consider that this situation in Spain undermines consumer rights, since it encourages people to shop for these products at supermarkets?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

At the present time, the Commission does not have any information which would justify the initiation of proceedings against petfood manufacturers in Spain, nor has it received any complaint regarding the practices objected to by the Honourable Member.

It should be pointed out that the differences in petfood prices between supermarkets and small retailers are not in themselves proof that there has been a breach of the Community rules on competition. In a market economy the prices in question may simply reflect differences in the negotiating power of the parties concerned.

In any case, the Spanish competition authorities, and in particular the Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia, would seem better placed to look into this matter, given that any distortions of competition are essentially occurring in Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Implementation of the television without frontiers directive

Directive 97/36/EC(1), Television without frontiers, which came into force on 3 July 1997, includes rules on teleshopping, the protection of minors and advertising. Since it has not yet been incorporated into Greek law, there are no rules on teleshopping, consumers receive no protection from advertising of all sorts and its provisions on the protection of minors are not being applied.

What measures does the Commission intend to take with a view to the incorporation of the directive into Greek law, the protection of television viewers, and, especially, the safeguarding of children from unsuitable programmes?

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission has recently decided to refer to the Court of Justice the fact that Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities has not yet been fully incorporated into Greek law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0291/00

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Phare programme for Croatia

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

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

In view of recent political developments in Croatia the Commission has introduced a number of measures clearly indicative of its full support and encouragement for the democratisation process. This process marks the beginning of a new stage in relations between that country and the European Union.

High-level representatives such as the new leaders of Croatia, the President of the Commission and the Member of the Commission responsible for external relations have exchanged visits. The first meeting of the Joint EU-Croatia Consultative Task Force set up by the General Affairs Council on 24 January 2000 was held on 15 February this year. The Council has also asked the Commission to draw up a report on the feasibility of starting negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement.

A Commission fact-finding mission to Croatia at the beginning of March will make an initial assessment of the country's needs and priorities as a preliminary to drawing up a programme of Community aid for Croatia for this year.

On the particular question of Croatia's eligibility for Phare aid, it should be remembered that this spring the Commission will be presenting a new programme for the Western Balkans as a whole. Thereafter the Phare programme will focus on the applicant countries whilst the new programme will replace the Phare and Obnova programmes for the Balkan States including Croatia. Croatia will receive aid under this programme as soon as it enters into force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Proposals for amending Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products

With a view to improving Directive 85/374/EEC(1) on liability for defective products the Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on questions raised in the Green Paper on liability for defective products before the expiry of a period of four months from the date of publication of the Green Paper. As the Green Paper itself states: The announcement of this move mldr naturally aroused the interest of the economic operators, consumers and public administrations.

1. Does the Commission consider that the response of the economic operators and public administrations in the Member States to the questions in the Green Paper has been satisfactory?

2. From which Greek consumer organisations has it received comments? Did the General Secretariat for Consumers respond?

(1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

1. The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has received nearly 100 comments on the green paper(1).

Replies emanate from national and European consumer organisations, sectors of industry concerned (in particular pharmaceuticals, cars, insurance, chemicals, agricultural products, electrical equipment), public administrations of Member States (Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Austria, Portugal, Finland, United Kingdom) and third countries (Iceland, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland) and bodies specialising in product liability (e.g. Pan-European organisation of personal injury lawyers, United States Defense research institute, Special committee on European product liability law).

The Commission published the comments on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/internal_market/en/goods/liability/replies.htm).

At this stage, it is premature to judge the substance of the replies.

2. No reaction has so far been received from any Greek consumer organisation.

(1) COM(99) 396 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Piecework

The German firm Volkswagen has reintroduced piecework to the European car industry. Its 5 000 x 5 000 plan includes a condition unprecedented in this industry whereby working time is to be made a variable element of employment for which employees themselves are responsible.

Does the Commission have any views on this new working arrangement involving a fixed salary for variable working hours? Could it be put forward as one way of helping to fight unemployment and create jobs in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission considers that new forms of work organisation are likely to be most successful when they are introduced in agreement between the social partners. It is also important to ensure a suitable balance of flexibility and security. Innovative forms of work organisation can lead to an increase in employment, but this will depend very much on the particular circumstances.