ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/245

(2004/C 33 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2287/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: VAT rates for soy products

Soy products are mainly used as substitutes for milk products of animal origin (often in case of lactose intolerance or milk protein allergy) since they are able to provide an equivalent nutritional value to dairy products, which leads to the fact that soy and dairy products are directly competing on the market.

Whereas all Member States apply reduced VAT rates on dairy products, several Member States apply the standard VAT rate — which is considerably higher — on soy products (e.g. Spain and Austria).

Member States have to respect the principle of ‘fiscal neutrality’ which prohibits the application of different VAT treatments on equal/similar competing products since it leads to a distortion of competition. Also the European Court of Justice decided in several cases that similar goods/services have to be subjected to a uniform VAT rate.

1. Has the Commission taken or does it envisage any concrete measures to protect the principle of ‘fiscal neutrality’ within the Member States in the case of soy products?

2. Is the Commission planning to include recommendations to the Member States on applying uniform VAT rates on soy and dairy products in the framework of the general review of reduced rates planned for 2003 or in its biannual report reviewing the scope of the reduced VAT rates?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The current Community rules on VAT rates (Article 12(3) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1)) do indeed give the Member States the option of applying a reduced rate to food products, since that category is listed in Annex Η to the Sixth Directive. If they opt to do so, they are not, however, obliged to apply a reduced rate to all food products.

The Commission has recently approved a proposal for a directive on reduced rates of VAT (2). The main purpose of this proposal is to improve the working of the internal market by rationalising the Member States' use of reduced rates in order to avoid potential distortions of competition by giving all Member States equal opportunities to apply reduced rates.

Though its proposal does not affect the category of foodstuffs, the Commission has nevertheless taken this opportunity to remind Member States of the need to bear in mind the case-law of the Court of Justice when defining the scope of their reduced rates. In particular, they need to respect the principle of fiscal neutrality, which includes two other principles, namely the principles of VAT uniformity and of elimination of distortion in competition.

(1) Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Last amended by Directive 2002/93/EC; OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

(2) COM(2003) 397 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/127

(2004/C 65 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2295/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: EU funded projects

Will the Commission list the projects for which EU funds (including any EIB loans) were committed, and for which funds were disbursed, during the last financial year in Hampshire/Kent/Surrey/west Sussex/east Sussex/Isle of Wight/Oxfordshire/Berkshire/Buckinghamshire?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/54

(2004/C 65 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1188/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the FIFG by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to support structural measures in the sector of fisheries, acquaculture and the processing and marketing of the relevant products,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the FIFG?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/275

(2004/C 65 E/290)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3505/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Saarland between January 1997 and December 2002

1. For what measures was EU funding granted to Saarland between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from: (a) the European Social Fund; (b) the Fifth Framework Programme for Research; (c) the European Regional Development Fund; (d) EU environmental and energy programmes; (e) the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section and Guarantee Section); (f) other EU programmes?

2. How much was paid from the individual programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Saarland and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium and Lorraine?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/232

(2004/C 33 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2192/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Testing methods for dairy products

Could the Commission supply an updated list of the Community legislation in force relating to testing methods and inspection techniques used for milk and dairy products, with particular reference to methods for detecting micro-organisms?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Analyses and tests normally carried out on milk and milk products aim at controlling, on the one hand, their safety and on the other hand, their quality and composition.

With regard to the safety of milk and milk products, the relevant requirements currently in force are those laid down in Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (1). Certain reference methods used to test against the different criteria set out in the above Directive are laid down in Commission Decision 91/180/EEC of 14 February 1991 laying down certain methods of analysis and testing of raw milk and heat-treated milk (2). However, some of the methods have been subject to adaptations or replaced by new techniques, since they were prescribed in this Decision, in accordance with the recommendations of the Community Reference Laboratory (CRL) for the analysis and testing of milk and milk products. It is indeed one of the duties of this laboratory to provide national reference laboratories (NRLs) with details and updating of analytical methods, to co-ordinate research into new analytical methods and to inform NRLs of advances in this field. The Commission together with the CRL is currently preparing an amendment to Decision 91/180/EEC to be proposed in the near future for approval by the Member States. This will be based on the latest list of reference methods recommended by the CRL. This list will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat for information.

In addition, food business operators may use, in routine testing, alternative analytical methods when these methods provide equivalent guarantees and have been validated against the reference methods set above. These alternative methods are not subject to official listing in Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.

(2) OJ L 93, 13.4.1991.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/273

(2004/C 65 E/287)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Ban on the use of paraquat

At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, a Commission proposal was adopted regarding the use of paraquat as a pesticide. This substance is known to be exceedingly dangerous and can cause irreversible damage to human health. Given its highly toxic nature, coupled with the absence of any antidote, it may prove fatal and it is particularly harmful to animals and birds. In certain Member States the use of paraquat has been prohibited and many non-governmental organisations have called for a ban on its use both in the EU Member States and in the developing countries.

Why has the Commission recommended the continued use of such a highly toxic substance? Is it aware that by authorising the widespread use of paraquat, it will encourage its use in countries where it is already banned and in developing countries? Will it reconsider the matter, given the availability of safer alternatives?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3093/03 by Mr Ettl (1).

(1) See page 266.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/236

(2004/C 33 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) and Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

In the last twelve months technical support offices, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private firms financed by the Commission have notified over 500 vacancies at European level that were reserved exclusively for applicants of ‘English mother tongue’ and ‘native English speakers’ (www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15). In these notices, applications are invited, not from candidates with ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English, but explicitly and exclusively from those of English mother tongue.

Is the Commission aware that the Intrasoft and Ogilvy undertakings, with which the Commission has already worked, recently sought to recruit an applicant of English mother tongue exclusively? Did the Commission oppose that action? If so, how? If not, why not?

Does the Commission intend to continue to work with organisations that discriminate against non-native English speakers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2003)

The Commission explained its position concerning the problem in general in numerous replies to written questions. The Honourable Members are therefore referred to the replies of the Commission given to Written Questions: No E-4100/00 by Mr Staes (1), E-0779/01 by Mr Staes (2), E-1356/01 by Mr Gemelli (3), E-1681/01 by Mr Staes (4), E-1682/01 by Mr Staes (4), E-2331/01 by Mr Ferrer (4), E-2900/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-2901/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-2944/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-3189/01 by Mr Rothley (5), E-3572/01 by Mr Staes (6), E-0941/02 by Mr Staes (7), E-2764/02 by Mr Staes (8), E-1733/03 by Mr Leinen (9) and E-2018/03 by Mr Staes (10).

All Commission services have been made aware of possible discriminatory job advertisements and asked to take the necessary steps as regards their contractors. The Commission tries to avoid co-operation with organisations which publish job advertisements with a ‘native speaker’ criterion. The Commission was not aware of the cases referred to by the Honourable Members. Contact is being taken with the undertakings involved in this respect.

The Commission would also like to reiterate its intention to use its legal powers to fight against the use of a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(3) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(4) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.

(5) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.

(6) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.

(7) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

(8) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2002.

(9) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 221.

(10) See page 201.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/137

(2004/C 65 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Transparency requirements

Further to the Commission's answer to question E-1885/03 (1) on 3 July, will the Commission now list as requested all those individuals and organisations which submitted written documents concerning transparency obligations, and will it note in each case whether that submission was supportive of or antagonistic towards or indifferent to quarterly reporting of one form or another? Will the Commission forward and publish the summary document prepared for the Commissioner on the results of the consultation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

In addition to the answer already given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1885/03, the Commission is in a position to provide the following information:

— Prior to its proposal for a Directive (2) on the transparency obligations for security issuers, the Commission services carried out two written consultation rounds.

— In the first consultation round, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for both share issuers and bond issuers for each quarter of the financial year. A summary of the replies received has been published on the Commission website in December 2001 (3).

— In the second consultation round which lasted from May until July 2002, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for shares issuers for the first three quarter of a company's financial year; smaller share issuers should only be subject to lighter financial reporting requirements whereas the other issuers should be subject to compliance with the international accounting standards for interim financial reporting (IAS 34). In total, the Commission received 93 responses. The pros and cons on the issue of quarterly financial information were already explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal. In purely statistical terms based on the number of responses received, the outcome has been as follows: — 65 respondents reacted on the question of quarterly reporting. 35 respondents thereof (= 53,9 %) supported the principle of quarterly reporting based on IAS 34 whereas 30 (= 46,1 % ) opposed the principle as such; — 14 out of the favourable respondents rejected the idea of having a lighter regime for smaller issuers whereas 14 others supported this; seven respondents did not touch on the issue of smaller share issuers.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 152.

(2) COM(2003) 138 final.

(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/mobil/transparancy.htm
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/60

(2004/C 65 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1041/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Pesaro

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

2. whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/95

(2004/C 65 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1847/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Compliance with the SEIA directive in connection with the Milan-Bergamo-Brescia super-highway construction project

Pursuant to the Commission's recent directive on strategic environmental impact assessment (SEIA (1)), any plans for the construction of major new items of transport infrastructure must be accompanied by an assessment of all practicable alternatives (so that the one which will have least impact on the environment can be chosen) and the involvement of the local people affected, their associations and the local authorities, so that the necessary information can be provided and local people's opinions sought.

However, this right to access information and to express views has been (and is still being) denied in the case of the plans (promoted by the Italian Government) for a Milan-Bergamo-Brescia super-highway (known as the Mibebre highway), since the local people, associations and authorities know only what has appeared in the press.

Furthermore, what has so far been revealed through the press is particularly worrying: the super-highway will apparently damage or destroy cultural artefacts and natural features, including four regional parks. These include the valuable Naviglio Martesana, which is in the process of being recognised as a Unesco world heritage site.

In view of the above, does the Commission not think that it should take action vis-à-vis the Italian Government with a view to ensuring that, in the case of the Mibebre project, the SEIA directive and EU environmental laws in general are observed and enforced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment establishes, in its Article 13, that Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 21 July 2004.

At this stage, therefore, this Directive is not applicable, nor has Italy yet communicated to the Commission the measures adopted in order to comply with it.

Apart from the above-mentioned Directive, the information given by the Honourable Member has not revealed any specific grounds of complaint on the application of other Community environmental provisions to the specific case. Therefore, in the light of the above, no breach of Community environmental legislation can be identified at present.

(1) Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/87

(2004/C 65 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Implementation of EU Directives by Ireland

Ireland has yet to implement EU Directive 91/676/EEC (1) and has not set limits on the spreading of slurry and fertilisers on farmland in order to protect water quality. Ireland is the only Member State not to have done so.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that Ireland complies with this directive? Does the Commission agree that Ireland has a history of non-implementation of EU environmental legislation and that strong action is now needed to ensure that such legislation is quickly and properly enforced?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/142

(2004/C 65 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Exemption from VAT on postage for charities

Further to the Commission proposal to put VAT on postage and recognising that this would impose a severe financial burden on charities that depend on direct mail fundraising and are not eligible to reclaim VAT in the same way as ordinary businesses.

Can the Council advise whether it will be possible for charities that have the specific difficulty of not being able to reclaim VAT under Irish tax law to secure an exemption from this EU legislation?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Commission proposal to which the Honourable Member refers in her question is currently being examined within the Council's bodies.

Until those proceedings have been completed, the Council cannot reply to the Honourable Member's question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/167

(2004/C 33 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1762/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Discrimination between workers loading and unloading goods in Greece

Having received a large number of complaints, I should like to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that in Greece the job of loading and unloading goods is still governed by a law dating back to 1949 (Law No 1254) under which anyone wishing to engage in this occupation must first be entered in a register kept, without any clear rules, by an association which, according to the complaints received, frequently discriminates between applicants.

Does the Commission consider this situation to be in keeping with current common market rules?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that as a general rule and according to the jurisprudence a service provider has the right to employ personnel of his own choice.

The Commission, following informal contacts with the Greek authorities has been informed that the Law 1254/1949 does not in itself allow for the discriminations described in her written question.

However, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to submit to it any details, which may allow the conclusion that discrimination and abuses stemming from the application of Law 1254/1949 are occurring. In this case the Commission would be willing to investigate this matter in depth, in order to assess what action should be taken.

In any case, the Commission wishes to remind to the Honourable Member of its proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services, aiming at creating a level playing field in this area and further ensuring the full respect of the rules of the Treaty, for all parties concerned, workers, service providers and port users
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/150

(2004/C 65 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2427/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: State aid for Italian dairy producers

What is the value of the State aid which the Council recently decided to grant to Italian dairy farmers in relation to what would have been the amount if the superlevy had been paid when it was due?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is not in a position to make such a calculation. The value of the State aid will depend on various variables.

These are notably:

— the date when a given superlevy payment should have been made by a farmer;

— the amount of the superlevy for which the repayment facility authorised by the Council decision will actually be used;

— the applicable reference rate; and