ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3534/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 December 2002)

Subject: Linguistic diversity

Cultural and linguistic diversity is often put forward as one of Europe's major strong points. The Union's hallmark is multilingualism, unlike any other world power, today or yesterday, all of which were based on a common, if not actually a single language. The EU currently has 11 official languages.

The reality, however is, that a phenomenon called simplification is more and more frequent, namely the reduction in practice of the number of official languages which are also used as working languages. And yet the cost of multilingualism is not exorbitant: for 11 languages, it is 1 % of the EU's budget, that is, EUR 2,7 per citizen per annum.

It needs to be stressed that the EU is not a private company, obliged to minimise spending at all costs. It is a political edifice funded on law and democracy. One of the practical preconditions for a democratic debate is the right of all European citizens to take part, using their own languages. The price that has to be paid is part of the price of democracy, just like the cost of European elections, which no one is talking about simplifying or eliminating.

More alarming still is the news published in La Quinzaine européenne of 18 November 2002, claiming that Commission President Romano Prodi and Commissioner Günter Verheugen have given orders that all accession negotiations are to be held in English, to the general astonishment of certain candidate countries such as Bulgaria, which apparently reminded them that both French and German are equally widely used in government circles in Sofia.

Given these very disturbing facts, can the Commission provide some clarification with regard to the published claims and, more generally, can it state its own position on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Commission shares the commitment of the Honourable Member as regards the fundamental principles and objectives of the language regime in the Union.

Enlargement will strengthen the diversity of languages. European citizens from 25 Member States will be able to use their own language in contacts with the European Institutions.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that neither President Prodi nor the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement have ever given orders that all accession negotiations are to be held in English.

Accession conferences are intergovernmental conferences. As a consequence, the language regime for these conferences is determined by the representatives of participating States and not by the Commission.

In the Commission's experience of the accession negotiations at different levels, there has not been any restriction of the language regime to English or any other official language of the European Union and all official languages of the Union have been available for use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3305/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Commission delegation

On 3 September a delegation from the Directorate-General for the Environment held a meeting in Zakynthos with local authority and government representatives concerning the loggerhead turtle (caretta caretta). Can the Commission say what was the outcome of this meeting? Did the delegation uncover any infringements of Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

From 3 to 5 September 2002, a Commission delegation visited the island of Zakynthos in order to check whether all necessary measures had been taken to protect the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta and comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 January 2002(1). The Court had found that Greece had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC(2).

The Commission delegation noted that progress had been made and the situation was better than in previous years. However, it concluded that Greece had not done everything necessary to comply with the Court's judgment, which required it to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the loggerhead sea turtle. The Greek authorities were informed of the results of the visit.

The Commission will not hesitate to take appropriate measures to ensure that Greece complies with the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 January 2002 in the Caretta caretta case.

(1) Judgment of the Court of 30 January 2002, Commission v Hellenic Republic, Case C-103/00, European Court Reports 2002, p. 1147.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Advisor responsible for competition hearings

The Commission has recently strengthened the role of the advisor responsible for competition hearings, making him the guardian of basic procedural rights such as the right to a hearing and the right to access to Commission files. At the same time, the advisor is no longer part of the Directorate-General for Competition but, for reasons of transparency, is answerable to the Commissioner responsible for competition policy.

Who specifically is responsible for recruiting the advisor and on the basis of what criteria? Who assumes responsibility for his actions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

To ensure full protection of the defence rights of firms that are involved in proceedings under the competition rules (Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty and merger control regulation), the Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings(1) expanded the duties and altered the administrative status of hearing officers.

To ensure full independence from the Directorate-General responsible for investigating cases, the hearing officer is now attached to the Member of the Commission with special responsibility for competition.

The procedure for selecting and appointing hearing officers is carried out in accordance with the Staff Regulations, but it is also designed to preserve their independence with regard to the Directorate-General concerned.

The Commission assumes responsibility for the actions of the hearing officer.

(1) OJ L 162, 19.6.2001
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3601/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Pollution caused by the fuel oil transported by the Prestige proposed action to fight the long-term effects of the pollution

A number of news reports state that the fuel oil transported by the Prestige is highly toxic. What is the chemical nature of the fuel oil transported by the Prestige and spilled by it off the Galician coast? What are the likely short- and long-term consequences for the ecosystem? What measures are proposed to clean up the marine environment of Galicia, given the highly sensitive position of this region of Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The oil carried by the Prestige is not only authorised but is also registered by the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) as a heavy fuel oil.

This product is a residue of the refining process. It is a highly viscous pollutant which is very hard to clean up once it spreads at sea and along the coast. It is the most polluting type of fuel oil, which is why tighter safety measures are required.

At its meeting on 6 December 2002, the Transport Council agreed, following a proposal from the Commission, that single hull tankers carrying heavy oils should be banned from EU ports.

Accordingly, on 20 December 2002 the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a regulation(1) to prohibit the transport of heavy oil products in single hull tankers bound for or leaving EU ports and to bring forward the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers adopted as part of the Erika I package.

The Commission asked the Council and Parliament to examine the text as a matter of urgency with a view to its being adopted.

In order that the impact of the pollution on the Spanish coast may be assessed, the Commission is planning to co-finance a study of the environmental repercussions of the accident. Contacts are already under way with the Spanish authorities.

(1) COM(2002) 780 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3011/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: CAP subsidies to the UK royal family

How much does Queen Elizabeth II receive in CAP subsidies? How much does Prince Charles receive in CAP subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

The Honourable Member is requesting information on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies paid to certain individuals.

Member States are required to send to the Commission certain accounting information every year, whose content and form is precisely described by Community rules. However, according to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001(1), the Commission is obliged to ensure that this information in question is kept confidential and secure. Therefore, the Commission is not allowed by Community rules to provide the requested information to the Honourable Member.

It is recommended to the Honourable Member to address his request direct to the Member State concerned, who holds all the necessary information for answering to the Honourable Member.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 8, 12.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2834/02

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2002)

Subject: VAT refunds

Pursuant to the eighth VAT Directive, VAT refunds were scheduled to have been abolished several years ago, with VAT being incorporated into the sixth EEC Directive. VAT-registered companies could then deduct EU VAT in their own regular domestic VAT declarations. The EU Member States would subsequently clear the VAT debt between the various countries.

The proposal that a European VAT-refund system be created was never adopted. That resulted in major bureaucratic problems for European companies.

Have any measures been taken to ease the burden for companies as regards VAT refunds? What alternatives does the Commission see to a European VAT-refund system?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the rules governing the right to deduct value added tax(1), submitted by the Commission in June 1998, aiming to replace the refund procedure laid down in the Eighth VAT Directive(2) with the right for taxable persons to recover VAT directly in the regular VAT declarations they make in their Member State of establishment. The latter would then recover the amount from the Member State in which the tax was due by means of a refund system between the Member States.

Despite the full support of traders and the approval of Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, it has not yet been possible to obtain the Council's unanimous agreement on the proposal.

This is mainly due to the fact that the Council took some time to discuss the matter because other issues were considered more important.

However, at the Ecofin Council on 4 June 2002 the Council Presidency signalled its intention to re-open the discussion. The Danish Presidency honoured this undertaking and made considerable efforts to reach a compromise acceptable to all the Member States.

The Commission remains convinced that the proposal represents the only way to achieve a major simplification for traders, who could recover the VAT paid in another Member State in the same way as national VAT.

(1) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998.

(2) 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, OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/02

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Salmonella in meat preparations

Since November 2001 Sweden has no longer been allowed, according to the Commission, to carry out compulsory checks of its own for salmonella in meat preparations from another EU country after it was pointed out by the Commission that meat preparations are not covered by Sweden's guarantees against salmonella.

During 2002 Sweden's food standards agency and five Swedish municipalities investigated the incidence of salmonella in meat preparations such as marinated chicken, kebabs, spiced mincemeat and variously salted meats imported from other EU countries. The findings of this project have so far shown that approximately one third of the sampled batches tested positive for salmonella.

Is the Commission aware of the problem with salmonella in such meat preparations and can Sweden have its previous derogation extended to include meat preparations as well?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

The Commission has been informed about frequent findings of salmonella in meat preparations coming from other Member States to Sweden. The Commission is concerned about the situation.

Finland and Sweden were granted additional salmonella guarantees in the context of their accession to the Union. These guarantees cover the trade in certain live animals, eggs, fresh meat, fresh poultry meat and minced meat to Finland and Sweden. In order to extend these additional guarantees to meat preparations, the relevant Community legislation would need to be amended. However, it is noteworthy that Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat preparations(1) already lays down a salmonella criterion for meat preparations. Any meat preparation produced within the Community must comply with this criterion.

The Commission is of the opinion that when Community legislation already lays down a criterion for salmonella in meat preparations, there is no need to extend the additional salmonella guarantees to these products. However, the Commission is aware that the above-mentioned salmonella criterion may need to be reviewed. In this respect, the Commission is in the process of revising the current microbiological criteria in Community legislation, and is considering proposing improved sampling rules and a stricter limit for salmonella in meat preparations. This should contribute to decreasing the salmonella contamination in meat preparations throughout the whole Community.

In addition, the on-going revisions of Community legislation on food hygiene and zoonoses will strengthen the controls of salmonella along the whole food chain, from farm to table. This will have a positive impact on the salmonella situation in a number of foodstuffs including meat preparations.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/02

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

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Tenth anniversary of the Andalusia Technology Park in Malaga

The Andalusia Technology Park in Malaga has just celebrated its tenth anniversary. This occasion has induced reflection on the state of development of this initiative, which has had the effect of transforming the technological map of both Malaga province in particular and Andalusia in general.

The fact that the Commission has provided aid for this unique manifestation of the new technologies, located in a fast-evolving region like Andalusia, should be sufficient reason for greater publicisation of its support for this excellent initiative, which now houses a large number of technology companies.

Can the Commission indicate the nature of the aid provided by it to the Andalusia Technology Park in Malaga, and provide information on how, following on from the tenth anniversary of the park's foundation, it can now publicise, in suitable fashion, its own participation in this remarkable phenomenon of technological development in an economically depressed region like Andalusia?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission has provided back-up and financial support for the implementation and development of the Parque Tecnológico de Andalucía (PTA) project since its conception in 1990.

Under the Málaga y su Área de Influencia 1990-1993 operational programme (OP) the Commission contributed EUR 14,42 million towards designing and equipping the PTA, out of a total cost of EUR 24 million. During the 1994-1999 programming period and under the Andalusia OP, Community aid represented 72,5 % of the EUR 13,52 million in eligible expenditure allocated to developing and promoting the PTA. Lastly, the Integrado de Andalucía programme complement includes, for the current 2000-2006 programming period, a project to expand the PTA's range of services. The rate of Community part-financing for this project is 58,3 %.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the PTA is a success; a key factor in both its conception and implementation has been the involvement of all the regional and local players, public and private alike. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1), the managing authority is responsible for informing the general public about the role played by the Community in the assistance concerned and its results.

For its part, the Commission will certainly draw on this experience as it seeks to optimise the effectiveness of Community financial assistance for the regions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: The precedent set by recent decisions by Spain for the functioning of parliamentary democracy in the European Union

1. What precedent has Spain's decision about the right to exist of Herri Batasuna (and hence Euskadiko Herritarrok) set for the functioning of parliamentary democracy at all levels in the present and future Member States of the EU? Will it now be easier for parliamentary majorities and governments to exclude from participation minorities whom they detest?

2. Does the Commission expect that political movements which have many supporters will be made to disappear by declaring them illegal, or will the main effect of this effort to eradicate them ultimately be to render parliamentary democracy incomplete and impair its credibility?

3. In the Commission's opinion, can parliamentary democracy still function properly in the Basque country (Euskadi, País Vasco) and Navarre regions if in May 2003 a party which at present holds a majority of the seats on some municipal councils is excluded from participating in the elections and if in June 2004 it does not have the opportunity to put forward candidates for election in order to remain represented in the European Parliament?

4. Will the next European Parliamentary elections be legally valid if parties with genuine support among the electorate are excluded by Member States from participating in them?

5. What can the Commission do to contribute to the complete preservation of the parliamentary democracy which exists in Spain, including in the regions of Euskadi and Navarre, and to help guarantee the right to participate of left-wing Basque nationalists in the next elections to the European Parliament?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2619/02and E-2620/02 given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Commission would point out that the issues raised by the Honourable Member relating to political movements in general and participation in general elections in a specific Member State are matters for the Member States.

On the other hand, regarding the elections to the Parliament, both the existing Act of 1976(1) and the proposed Decision amending the Act(2) provide that the electoral procedure in the elections to the Parliament shall be governed in each Member State by its national provisions. This concerns also rules and conditions for political parties to put candidates and to participate in the elections.

It is therefore not for the Commission to answer the specific questions put by the Honourable Member.

(1) Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976, OJ L 278, 8.10.1976.

(2) Draft Council decision (8964/2002) amending the Act concerning the election of representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3773/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Spain's infringement of Directive 91/680/EEC on fiscal harmonisation with reference to VAT

The questioner would like to refer to Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU, Article 13 of the TEC and Directive 91/680/EEC(1) on fiscal harmonisation with reference to VAT.

More than ten years have passed since Spain's accession to the European Union and the Directive should therefore have been fully transposed into national law.

On 23 November 1989 the Commission wrote to the Spanish Permanent Representation to the EU to point out that the tax benefits resulting from the VAT exemption which the Catholic Church is the only religious faith in Spain to enjoy by virtue of the 1979 Agreement concerning Economic Affairs concluded between the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy See, are not mentioned in the above-mentioned Directive. In its reply the Spanish Government confined itself to saying that the Agreement was concluded before Spain's entry into the Community in 1986.

Article 5 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession to the European Communities of the Kingdom of Spain establishes that Article 307 of the TEC applies to Spain. The second paragraph of that article obliges the Member States to take all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities ascertained between Community law and the obligations arising from treaties signed prior to accession, as in the above-mentioned case.

Furthermore, by virtue of the Agreement concerning Economic Affairs the Catholic Church is the only religious faith funded by the Kingdom of Spain the Spanish general budget for 2001 sets a minimum monthly amount of EUR 11 109 169,68, equivalent to an annual sum of EUR 133 310 036,16, for the benefit of the Catholic Church, thereby discriminating against other religious faiths.

Can the Commission say:

- what it intends to do to put an end to this infringement on the part of the Kingdom of Spain;

- whether there are other Member States in the same situation,

- whether it does not consider that this infringement constitutes discrimination against other religious faiths?

(1) OJ L 376, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The Commission has examined the measure under the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty, which it initiated with regard to Spain and Portugal. In Portugal's case the procedure was closed, since there was no VAT exemption, only repayment after taxation. In order to ensure identical treatment of both Member States, which were in a similar situation, and given that Spain financed the exemption from its own resources, the Commission decided to close the procedure against Spain too.

As to the alleged discrimination against religions other than Catholicism, the Commission would point out that, as Community law stands at present, the financing of religious institutions falls entirely within the sphere of competence of the Member States.