ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0645/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Statement by the Portuguese Presidency

On 31 January 2000 the Portuguese Presidency published a statement on behalf of 14 EU Member States (all except Austria), in which it says that (1) no official bilateral contacts at political level with any Austrian Government involving the FPÖ are to be encouraged or accepted, (2) Austrian candidates for posts in international organisations are not to be supported, and (3) the Austrian ambassadors to the EU capitals are to be received only at technical level. Portugal's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have also given the Austrian authorities to understand that it will not be business as usual in bilateral relations with any government involving the FPÖ in the future. In this context I wish to ask:

1. whether the statement by the Portuguese Presidency of the Council reflects a substantial change of paradigm in relations among the Member States, which will be characterised in the future not by a spirit of cooperation among the 15 Member States, but by the opposition of 14 Member States to one;

2. whether so disproportionate a reaction, a reaction that appears exaggerated, is justified in the case of a Member State which can without any doubt be described as a liberal-minded country and a stable democracy in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are guaranteed by its constitution and protected by an independent judiciary;

3. whether the Presidency's statement should not be dismissed if only because it was issued without any prior dialogue with the Federal Austrian Government and is therefore, in fact, highly inconsistent with the European spirit of dialogue;

4. whether the statement should not be withdrawn on the grounds that the partners in the coalition have pledged to uphold the EU's fundamental values without exception.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0645/00 and E-0646/00

(20 November 2000)

The measures to which the Honourable Member refers were announced in a statement made by the Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the Governments of 14 Member States. That statement is not binding on the Council.

The Council has not taken a view on this issue and is not therefore in a position to reply to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1685/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Clean-up following tourism scandal

During the summer of 1994, a Greek national was dismissed from DG23 in strict secrecy because he had been accused of taking bribes in connection with various tourist projects in France and Greece. The Greek national was held in custody in Belgium for 13 months but was then released.

The most recent information in the case dates from May 1998; no legal proceedings had yet been initiated at that point. Newspaper reports in Sweden claim that the senior officials with responsibility during the tourism scandal in early 1999 have escaped prison sentences.

Has the new Commission examined this case and taken action to clean up its departments following these tourism scandals? Has the official in question been convicted?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The case referred to by the Honourable Member has a disciplinary aspect and a judicial aspect.

The appointing authority took disciplinary measures against one Commission official and one member of the temporary staff in 1995 (removal from post and termination of contract respectively). Subsequent investigation by the Commission uncovered no facts such as to implicate any other officials or servants of the institution or give rise to the opening of further disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission sent all the files concerning this case to the judicial authorities in Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg and Spain. As for the facts coming under the jurisdiction of the French judicial authorities, a court in Paris held a three-day hearing on 29 and 30 June and 6 July 2000 with a view to delivering a judgment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Child soldiers and small arms in African conflicts

There are horrific stories of the devastation caused by the use of small arms and the destruction of a generation of children through conscription into armies, both unofficial and official.

It is estimated that up to 300 000 children world wide, and 120 000 in Africa alone, are serving as combatants in government armed forces or armed opposition groups.

Unfortunately, many of the arms used are manufactured in Europe and traded from Europe, sometimes through by-passing the code of conduct on Arms Exports adopted in 1998.

How can the Council ensure a more stringent and binding application of the EU code in each country of the Union?

Can the Council give more particular attention to the criteria and operative provisions at the yearly review of this code, most of all for criteria 1, 3, 7, and operative provisions 8 and 11?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

1. The Council is constantly concerned by the destabilising accumulation of small arms and light weapons and their devastating effects on child soldiers enrolled in official and unofficial armies. The Code of Conduct on arms exports adopted on 8 June 1998 is directed towards establishing high common standards to be regarded by all Member States as a minimum for the control of conventional arms transfers. The Code is also aimed at strengthening the exchange of relevant information with a view to greater transparency.

2. Arms exportation policies and application of the Code are the responsibility of the Member States, which take decisions authorising or refusing arms transfers on the basis of the Code. The Member States are, however, obliged to exchange information each year, within the Council, on their arms exports. An annual report is prepared on that basis, allowing a joint evaluation of implementation of the Code and in particular of the application of each of the criteria contained therein.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Peoples

What is the Commission's interpretation of peoples, within the meaning of Articles 151, 189 and 190 of the EC Treaty? In the case of the Spanish State, does it correspond to that which the Spanish Constitution recognises as nationalities?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

In the provisions referred to by the Honourable Member, as in other provisions (see in particular the first recital of the Preamble to the EC Treaty), the term European peoples or peoples of the Member States is general and refers to the population of the Member States making up the Community.

The Commission considers that the authors of the Treaties used the word peoples throughout to refer to the people holding the nationality of a Member State, namely the citizens of the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2045/00

by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Revision of Poseima

In the light of the preparatory work being undertaken by the Commission's services with a view to the revision of Poseima, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- at what stage of the revision process will the Portuguese government and the regional governments of the Azores and Madeira be involved, by way of consultation or participation; or, if this has been done already, at what stage did it take place?

- has provision been made, or will provision be made, for the social partners, notably the farmers' representative organisations, to be involved in the revision process by way of consultation or participation?

- have any of the bodies named in the previous paragraphs submitted specific proposals to the Commission for measures to be launched, amended or repealed?

- when does the Commission intend to conclude the process of revision of Poseima?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

A partnership exercise with the competent authorities is in progress in preparation for an overhaul of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima Agriculture). Presentation of the proposed changes is entered in the Commission's work programme for the autumn.

Proposals for changes to the Regulation have been received from the Portuguese Government, the regional authorities and certain social partners.

A grand partnership day was organised by the Commission on 23 November 1999.

On the occasion of visits to the Azores and Madeira and at meetings in Brussels the Commission is able to meet the organisations representing farmers.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Seals Directive 83/129/EEC

In reply to my earlier question (P-0395/00)(1) concerning the implementation of the Seals Directive (83/129/EEC)(2), the Commission gave an assurance that it had no reason to believe that the requirements of the Directive were not being carried out correctly by the Member States, while also referring to the miscoding of seal pup products. According to Eurostat figures, imports of whitecoat products in Italy for 1998 totalled ECU 544 000, with Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg, Austria and France also registering a substantial value of whitecoat imports for 1998. Greece apparently exported whitecoat products in 1998

for a total value of ECU 605 000, with Italy and France also registering large quantities. Denmark claims only minimal imports and exports, whereas Greece registers large exports to Denmark and Italy large imports from Denmark.

1. Has the Commission examined these statistics?

2. Has the Commission requested further information from the Member States on these worrying statistics which are unlikely to be entirely due to presumed miscoding, as suggested in its previous reply?

3. Does the Commission agree that these statistics may show a failure of certain Member States to comply with Article 1(1) of the Seals Directive?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this situation?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 150.

(2) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission agrees that the question of continued alleged infringements of Community legislation mentioning imports and exports in Member States of seal pup products, as suggested by Eurostat statistics, deserves to be clarified.

Consequently it undertakes to follow this matter up with Member States where necessary and will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3399/00

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: VAT avoidance

I have noticed that in some EU Member States it is hard to get a receipt on which the VAT is clearly indicated. Because not every shop has electronic cash registers, it is very easy to avoid paying VAT. This problem should not be neglected, since the greater part of VAT revenue goes to the EU and thus the non-payment of VAT is of concern to the whole EU.

What percentage of VAT does the Commission estimate is avoided, and how does it propose to improve the effectiveness of controls?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Article 22(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT directive(1) obliges a taxable person to issue an invoice, or other document serving as an invoice (including, where approved by the Member State concerned, a cash register receipt) in respect of supplies of goods or services to another taxable person. No such obligation arises in Community law in respect of supplies to non-taxable persons. The collection and control of VAT in the Community falls under the competence of Member States which may impose obligations which they deem necessary for the correct collection of the tax and for the prevention of evasion.

The non-issue of a VAT receipt is in itself therefore not a presumption of fraud by a supplier. A taxable person is obliged to account for VAT on all sales even those for which a VAT receipt has not been issued. In the context of a control of a taxable person, Member States' tax administrations take cash sales into account.

As there are many different national estimates of tax evasion it has not been possible to compile any overall reliable figure.

At Community level the Commission is, in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 and Article 12 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89, continuously monitoring the effectiveness of Member States' collection and control of VAT as well as administrative cooperation. The last reports based on the above-mentioned regulations made several recommendations to the Member States on how to improve control and the fight against VAT fraud(2). At Community level, the Commission will soon present new legislation in order to make it possible for Member States to improve administrative cooperation substantially.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).

(2) Third Article 14 Report on the Application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation (VAT) (OJ L 24, 1.2.1992) and Fourth Report under Article 12 of Regulation (EEC, EURATOM) No 1553/89 on VAT Collection and Control Procedures (OJ L 155, 7.6.1989).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3475/00

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Flood in northern Italy

The recent severe weather has devastated north-west Italy, causing extensive damage to local economies, communications, homes, and, indeed, scores of deaths. The toll would undoubtedly have been far higher if the emergency services had not been properly prepared and so quick to act.

Earlier flooding on a similar scale likewise wreaked havoc in southern Italy. In that case too, the damage was immense, and several lives were lost.

The prospects for the rest of autumn and the coming winter are now being viewed with justified anxiety despite the fact that prevention systems and the operational apparatus have been shown to be extremely efficient.

In view of the exceptional nature and the seriousness of what has happened, does the Commission believe that the European institutions ought to provide assistance in the form of economic cooperation and contributions of Union resources?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3431/00, E-3464/00, E-3475/00 and P-3583/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Honourable Member should refer to the answer that the Commission gave to Oral Question H-0857/00 from Mr Ebner at question time during the November I 2000 part-session of Parliament(1).

The Honourable Member should also refer to the comments made by the Commission during the debate on climate change at the October II part-session on 25 October 2000(2) and the debate on floods in Europe at the November part-session on 16 November 2000(3).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (October II 2000).

(3) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Substantial increase in road and rail tunnels as a means of dual land use

1. Can the Commission confirm that for a long time tunnels for road and rail transport were something exceptional, originally only used for crossing mountain ranges and subsequently for crossing broad waterways where an above-ground solution was not a realistic alternative, but that developments in technology now make it possible and financially feasible to build many more tunnels?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that local, regional and national authorities of the Member States increasingly regard the construction of tunnels as a means of extending the land available for traffic in densely-populated areas through dual land use, partly with a view to sparing the countryside and limiting noise pollution?

3. Can the Commission provide figures on the increasing extent to which Member States are drawing up and implementing plans for building tunnels just below the surface of relatively flat areas to provide crossing-free metro lines, high-speed rail lines, goods rail lines and car tunnels?

4. Does the Commission agree that the criteria for deciding to build tunnels should be not only the use of space, speed of transport and construction costs, but also the safety and survival prospects of other transport users?

5. Can the Commission provide figures on the extent to which, as a result of the substantial increase in the number of tunnels, the risk of major fires and explosions similar to disasters in recent years in the Franco-Italian and Austrian alpine areas (Mont Blanc, Tauern and Kaprun) will increase?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Although the techniques used in driving tunnels or cutting and covering roads has made considerable progress, this form of civil engineering is still very expensive. These options thus do not offer any economically realistic alternative as compared with surface routes where these are possible.

Tunnel building is the responsibility of the local, regional or national authorities. These will decide which new infrastructures are to be produced on a case-by-case basis as a function of technical, economic, or environmental constraints and of the local inhabitants' interests and opinions. The Commission does not have in its possession any statistics on any current projects in the Member States and on any risks that such projects might entail. Nor, so far, has it noted any tendency towards preferential treatment for tunnel building.

As regards the intended action at Community level, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to his Question E-3902/00(1).

(1) See page 80.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3180/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: ERM II

1. Should the UK decide to join the euro, does the Council believe that the Treaty would require the UK to join ERM II prior to joining the euro and, if so, for how long?

2. If membership of ERM II is not a pre-requisite of membership, how would the UK be expected to fulfil the exchange rate stability requirements contained in the Treaty?

Reply

(24 April 2001)

In accordance with the Resolution of the European Council of 16 June 1998 on ERM II and the agreement of 1 September 1998 between the ECB and the national central banks of Member States outside the euro area, participation in ERM II of these Member States is voluntary.

The decision whether a Member State not participating in ERM II but wishing to adopt the euro fulfils the exchange rate stability criteria will be taken by the Council on the basis of reports by the Commission and the ECB, after consultation of the European Parliament and discussion in the Council meeting at Head of State or of Government level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4133/00

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Right of an Israeli national to play in German handball leagues

Does the Commission share the legal opinion that Israeli nationals are to be treated in the same way as EU citizens in German handball leagues in terms of their ability to participate with the result that their players' passes do not need to be stamped with the letter A in accordance with Section 15 of the DHB's match rules?

If not, does the Commission intend:

1. in the light of the recent negotiations with Israel on updating the association agreement of 20 November 1995,

2. mindful of the fact that Israeli sporting associations have for years participated in European football and handball tournaments and similar major events and are thus a permanent feature of the European internal market in sport with the result that it would be justified and consistent to create a uniform area of service provision for sporting activities that included Israel,

to work to ensure that the above association agreement is amended so that Israeli nationals are placed on an equal footing with EU citizens in terms of freedom of movement pursuant to Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

This is a matter for the Member States.

The Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the Community and its Member States and Israel came into force on 1 June 2000. It contains no provisions on non-discrimination in the area of working conditions between Israeli and EU citizens, nor does it contain measures on sport or the participation of Israeli or EU citizens in handball matches.

There are no plans to amend an agreement which has only recently come into force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Revision of the Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament (Anastassopoulos Report)

The European Parliament is awaiting the Council's common position on the revision of the Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament.

Will the French Presidency be seeking a decision on this matter?

Which Member States have particular problems in this respect?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council attaches great importance to the procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament, laid down in Article 190(4) of the Treaty. After receiving the Parliament's Resolution of 15 July 1998, the Council undertook the examination of a draft act relating to the election of members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. In the same context, the Council considered the question of the exact dates for the European vote.

Many aspects have been agreed, as stated in a letter to the President of the European Parliament on 22 May 2000. On other points, and particularly on possible amendments to Annex II of the 1976 Act, the dates for the elections to be held in 2004, and incompatibilities, the Council is continuing to seek agreement.

The Honourable Member may be assured that the Council is making every effort to resolve the matters still outstanding and to reach agreement on the arrangements to be covered by the procedure laid down in Article 190(4).