ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/529

(2004/C 78 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Ijzeren Rijn railway line

The Ijzeren Rijn line is an example of a European transport route which is useful for an open economy. It links not only the port of Antwerp but also the ports of Ghent, Zeebrugge and Ostend with the Ruhr and the German hinterland. The Ijzeren Rijn exists and has proved its usefulness in the past, but has ceased to be used for several decades because the cost of environmental improvements such as the building of tunnels in certain places would be far too high to permit the line to become profitable in the near future. The Netherlands Government has been using this argument as a pretext to prevent any action on the matter. However, because of the growing transport problems and the exponential growth in container traffic, Flanders feels the need to bring this line back into operation. Germany, and particularly the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, have supported Flanders for years in calling for this economically necessary development. However, unfortunately the Netherlands has adopted a policy of obstruction with regard to it, which is inspired by its own plans to create a modern link between the port of Rotterdam and the Ruhr by means of the exorbitantly expensive and environmentally undesirable Betuwe line, which will not benefit any other European country economically. Europe now formally recognises the importance of international railway lines.

Is the Commission monitoring developments with regard to the Ijzeren Rijn line?

Will the Commission try to secure a breakthrough at European level with regard to this vital matter, such as to arrive at a solution satisfactory to all parties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission monitors the developments in relation to the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) link between Antwerp and the German Ruhr area with great interest. The Commission has included this link under priority project No 24: Railway axis Lyon/Genova-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerpen in its proposal for the revision of the Guidelines for the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) (1). The countries involved have committed themselves to implement this project, which completion is foreseen for 2010. It should be observed though that the Betuwelijn link was part of the first serie of TEN-T projects, adopted under the so-called Essen project list in 1996.

Belgium and the Netherlands have recently decided to submit their conflict on the Iron Rhine to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The case is now at the pleading stage, and a ruling is expected for mid-2004. Hopefully, the ruling of the Court will constitute the basis for a satisfactory solution.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/649

(2004/C 78 E/0690)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3816/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Judicial inquiry by the Lecce Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6 million fraud against the European Union

An article appeared on 22 November 2003 on the website of the daily newspaper ‘La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno’ entitled ‘EUR 6 million fraud in Salento aganist the EU’:

— according to the article, three people had been arrested for criminal conspiracy, aggravated fraud against the European Community amounting to around EUR 6 million and fictitious invoices;

— the case allegedly concerns contributions received illicitly, on the basis of Law 488, for the fictitious purchase of machinery through forged invoices substantiated by fake expert evaluations;

— Community funds amounting to some EUR 6 million were apparently received by means of these invoices.

Will the Commission state:

— whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

— whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into alleged instances of fraud against the Union.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Lecce, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/647

(2004/C 78 E/0688)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3814/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Judicial inquiry by the Palermo Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6,5 million fraud against the European Union

An article appeared on 7 November 2003 on the website of the daily newspaper ‘La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno’ entitled ‘EUR 6,5 million fraud against the EU to finance Cosa Nostra’. According to the article:

— three people charged with fraud against the EU amounting to EUR 6,5 million were arrested by the ‘Guardia di Finanzia’ police in Palermo;

— the money was used to pay for illegal activities of Cosa Nostra;

— the three individuals had, through a number of companies, applied for EU funds from the Ministry for Industry to set up new companies at a cost of approximately EUR 6 million; of this amount, around EUR 2,5 million was granted and paid out;

— investigations begain in 2001; to obtain the amounts in question the three individuals produced totally fictitious documents;

— the three persons under arrest, who own various businesses dealing with tyre sales, had requested and obtained almost EUR 2,5 million to set up a tyre recucling plant in a shed. However, there was no machinery in this shed — which had been the object of a preventive confiscation order in previous years — and nothing had been produced.

Will the Commission state:

— whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

— whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into alleged instances of fraud against the Union.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Palermo, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/518

(2004/C 78 E/0539)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3309/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: ‘Responsible shopping week’ in the Commission's buildings

Between 6 and 10 October, a ‘responsible shopping week’ was held in the Commission's buildings. A brochure published in connection with it mentions cooperation in the project by the Fair Trade Centre and the Commission's main catering suppliers, Delhaize, Eurest and Sodexho.

As well as making space available in its buildings, did the Commission also provide financial assistance for this event? If so, how much?

Were any quantitative objectives set for ‘responsible shopping week’? If so, what? Were the objectives attained?

Did the organisers give consumers the opportunity to assess the quality of the products on offer? If so, what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

A one-week event on the theme of responsible consumption took place at the Commission from 6 to 10 October 2003. The week was organised to coincide with the ‘Fair Trade’ week in Belgium and in collaboration with the Fair Trade Centre — which co-ordinates the activities of the Belgian Fair Trade Organisations. The organisation of this event is the result of a commitment made by the Commission in its Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (1) to launch a campaign in 2003 to raise staff awareness of the principles of CSR.

During the event, fair trade products were offered for sale in the restaurants and cafeterias, vending machines and the Euro City shop of the Commission in Brussels. Products offered were coffee, tea, fruit juices, sugar, cereal and chocolate bars, rice, quince and bananas.

The Parliament was associated with the promotion and fair trade products were offered for sale in its restaurants and bars, as the Honourable Member will know.

The Employment and Social Affairs DG of the Commission provided a budget of EUR 30 000 that was used for producing promotional material (brochures, posters, etc.) and for organising food-tasting stands offering fair trade products.

The object of the week was to reinforce staff awareness of the issues relating to CSR and responsible consumption by offering them information on this subject as well as the chance to buy fair trade products at their workplace.

Initial reactions from Commission staff to the products offered have been positive, especially regarding coffee, tea, cereal and chocolate bars and fruit juices. Sales of these products have been substantial. The overall results of the event will be evaluated at the end of 2003.

The companies holding the concession contracts for the Commission's restaurants and cafeterias, vending machines and the Euro City shop have committed themselves to continue to offer these fair trade products for as long as there is sufficient demand.

(1) COM(2002) 347 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/142

(2004/C 78 E/0147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1999

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999: — 2 803 kg were exported from Spain to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 268,38, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,45/kg; — 790 750 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,43/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999: — 724 300 kg were exported from Italy and 263 400 kg from Germany to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 33 682,96 was paid on an additional 69 253 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 123 839,10 for the export of 263 400 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.
The Union is made up of 15, and soon 25, countries with many different traditions in the cultural field. These different traditions are also reflected in the national laws governing the protection of copyright and related rights.

To tackle some of these differences, the Commission has carried out several exercises over the past ten years to harmonise certain aspects of copyright in the internal market, and some of these efforts, like the harmonisation of the terms of protection (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (1)) have certainly made it easier for those involved in the Gutenberg project.

In Article 1 of this Directive, the rights of an author of a literary or artistic work run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public.

In the case of a work of joint authorship, the term referred to in Article 1 is calculated from the death of the last surviving author.

The only exceptions to this harmonisation that stand today concern Spain and France for a very limited set of authors. This exception is allowed via Article 10 of the Directive, providing that Member States with terms of protection longer than 70 years at the time of the adoption of Directive 93/98/EEC are entitled to keep them.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/177

(2004/C 78 E/0183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2847/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: Plans to develop Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc

There are plans to build a polo field and accommodation for 2000 people in the Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc area in the south of Mallorca. The polo field would be situated on fossilised dunes (semi-arid zone) on a saltwater table, next to an area of wetlands and coastal dunes containing Phoenician juniper which has been designated a special protection area for birds under Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and a priority habitat for conservation under Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Is the Commission aware of this development project?

Has the Commission been consulted by the Spanish State on this project as required under Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive?

Does the Commission believe that this project to construct accommodation and a polo field is compatible with the provisions of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the project referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has checked that the site in question has been classified as a special protection area (SPA) for birds pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

It should be noted that the Spanish authorities have also proposed the ‘Es trenc — Salobrar de Campos ES0000037’ site, which covers an area of 1 442 hectares, as a site of Community importance (SCI) for future inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under the terms of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities to seek their comments on how the abovementioned Directives have been enforced in this particular case and to determine whether the project in question is likely to have a significant effect on the site in terms of the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure laid down in Article 6 thereof would have to be applied.

In any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is complied with in this case.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/335

(2004/C 88 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0896/03

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: The German tax authorities' practices with regard to turnover tax

The German tax authorities are increasingly requiring firms not based in Germany to pay German turnover tax when goods are sent from the firm's place of business to customers in Germany. They take the view that sellers based abroad owe German turnover tax because they deliver to German customers. This is also the case when the goods are not transported directly to the German buyer, but placed in a warehouse by the haulage company contracted by the seller for the purpose of checking that the order is complete and in perfect condition. Only once the buyer has paid for the goods and they have been checked does the non-German seller release them from storage, i.e. the buyer collects them or has them collected. The German tax authorities work from the principle that, in spite of there already being a definite buyer, these goods are first transported to Germany for the seller's own purposes. This greatly obstructs intra-Community trade with Germany.

1. How does the Commission view the German tax authorities' interpretation of the law?

2. What measures will the Commission take if it judges that the behaviour of the German tax authorities violates Community legislation on turnover taxes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the place where goods are deemed to be supplied when sellers established outside Germany sell to customers resident in Germany if the goods are first placed in the haulage company's warehouse where the buyer comes to collect them.

The answer depends on the circumstances specific to each transaction and the actual terms of the contracts between the sellers subject to VAT and their customers. In particular, the issue is whether the goods were transported as part of the supply or with a view to a possible supply.

The Commission is already aware of the matter raised by the Honourable Member and intends to contact the German authorities to clarify details of the practice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/102

(2004/C 88 E/0106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject: Taxation of low-proof alcoholic beverages

In the light of the commercial success of the new alcoholic beverages commonly referred to as Ready-To-Drink, could the Commission say whether the following interpretation of Community law is accurate? If a government decides to increase excise duties on spirit-based RTDs only without altering taxes on traditional spirits, for public health reasons, is that decision in breach of Community law? These drinks are usually sweetened and in fact predominantly consumed by young people, which creates a considerable public health problem.

Would the Commission's answer be different if the receipts from this tax were not directly assigned to the general national budget but were earmarked for a specific purpose (i.e. for a body specifically responsible for public health)?

Does the case law of the Court of Justice in regard to the French social security contribution levied on alcoholic beverages (judgment of 24 February 2000 in case C-434/97) (1), which applied the scope offered by Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12, not provide a basis for Member States to tax traditional spirits and spirit-based RTDs differently (see point 19 of the judgment)?

Does the Commission not consider that this category of drinks, which primarily seeks to appeal to young people through being sweet, should be specifically defined, at least for taxation purposes? This question is all the more apposite given the evidence that manufacturers of RTDs do not hesitate to alter the alcohol content of these drinks in order to avail themselves of competitive tax benefits (as is the case with ‘malternatives’ in the USA, for example).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

A tax in some respects similar to that described by the Honourable Member has already been introduced in one Member State. It has attracted a number of complaints to the effect that it is contrary to both Article 90 of the EC Treaty and to Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding movement and monitoring of such products (2).

The Commission's inquiry into those complaints includes, among other matters, investigation of the legal questions being raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission has yet to conclude that inquiry.

The Commission has no intention of specifically defining for tax purposes the drinks described by the Honourable Member.

As regards non-tax aspects, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member of the Council Recommendation 2001/458/EC of 5 June 2001 on the drinking of alcohol by young people, in particular children and adolescents (3), which addresses the issue from a public health perspective.

(1) OJ C 052, 24.2.2000, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(3) OJ L 161, 16.6.2001.
A list with German associations receiving aid from Daphne is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In the framework of education, the funds are not allocated to a certain region. For the interventions in the part mobility of the educational programmes, the funds are at the disposal of the Member States participating in the programmes and administrated in a decentralised manner. For the interventions regarding other parts of these programmes, the allocation of aid follows a call for proposals and depends on the results of the selection.

In the framework of the programmes Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and youth the total amount of aid allocated in 2002 for projects where the promoter has its residence in Bavaria amounts to EUR 2,9 million. This amount does not include the mobility grants handed out to beneficiaries from Bavaria by national agencies in charge of funds for decentralised programmes in Germany.
1.

The rules governing the fixing of hunting seasons under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) are given in Article 7 of the Directive. The Commission, with the Member States, has compiled information on the pre-nuptial migration and reproduction periods of all huntable species in each Member State in order to facilitate the application of the fixing of hunting seasons in accordance with the Directive (2).