ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0599/00

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Exchanging banknotes in national currencies for euro

On 1 January 2000, all cash held in the national currencies of the countries in the euro-zone must be converted into euro. Many citizens keep sums of money in cash at home, the origins of which are perfectly legal, but which have not been declared to the tax authorities.

The origins of these sums of money may be various and reflect the tradition of cash payment and what is known in popular French culture as savings kept under the mattress.

Converting this cash into euro will mean that holders will have to declare the money to the tax authorities and pay tax or even fines. Unless preventive action is taken, there is a definite risk of tax evasion occurring as a result of funds being channelled through countries outside the euro-zone, or even of fraud.

Although only a rough estimate can be made of the amount of money involved in each country, the national banking authorities estimate that the amounts are not insignificant and that large-scale tax evasion could have an adverse effect on the economies of the euro-zone.

In addition, depending on how strict an approach is taken in each of the Member States, there is a danger of harmful tax competition occurring within the Union.

One solution may be the reinvestment of these sums of money, under certain conditions, in the national economies.

Has the Commission addressed the problem, in particular as part of the tax package that is currently being discussed? If so, can it explain what proposals it has made? If not, does it intend to look into the issue?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

In order to avoid complicating the conversion of banknotes in 2002, the Member States do not wish to create new controls in addition to those already in place. Under Council Directive 91/308/EC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(1), banks will simply have to check the identity of customers converting a sum of over 15 000 in one or more transactions.

Coins and notes will be converted free of charge for bank customers provided that the sums involved are household amounts. It will often be possible to exchange notes at commercial banks for several months after they cease to be legal tender. The exchange period will be longer at the central bank, usually about ten years, or sometimes indefinite, as in Belgium.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Regional policy

Addressing the Committee on Regional Policy, Mr Landaburu recently stated that if there is to be improvement and greater efficiency it is essential to modify or broaden the criteria, rather than simply continuing to use GDP per inhabitant as the sole indicator.

What other criteria does he believe should be included?

Has a decision already been taken on these new indicators?

When is any such decision expected to be adopted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) refers to per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The Article states that the regions covered by Objective 1 (those whose development is lagging behind) are NUTS level II regions whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average.

The GDP of a region is a global indicator of its production activity. It is therefore a suitable instrument for measuring regions' levels of economic development. Moreover, since 1998 the per capita GDP expressed in purchasing power parity and calculated at NUTS level II has been used to determine whether regions may be covered by Objective 1.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the aforementioned Regulation, the list of regions covered by Objective 1 was drawn up by the Commission on 1 July 1999. This list will remain valid until 31 December 2006.

With this in mind, for the 2000-2006 period the Commission does not intend to propose eligibility criteria for Objective 1 different to those adopted by the Council and Parliament.

In addition, the distribution of total appropriations between regions eligible under Objective 1 is based on criteria other than the region's per capita GDP, in particular the unemployment rate.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that, in the context of Objective 2 (regions under conversion), Article 4 of the same Regulation envisages a number of criteria in addition to the per capita GDP which may be used to justify the eligibility of the proposed areas.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety

In the annex to its White Paper on food safety (COM(1999) 719 final), the Commission indicates that it will present a proposal for a directive on fortified foods.

Could the Commission explain:

1. On what basis the Scientific Committee for Food will define upper safe limits for vitamin and mineral intakes, and how the Commission will utilise these in defining maximum limits for food fortification in the Directive?

2. Whether the Directive will allow the use of those vitamins and minerals, which it has listed in the Directive on Dietary Foods for Special Medical Purposes (1999/21)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

1. The Commission has given a mandate to the scientific committee for food (SCF) to review the upper levels of daily intakes of vitamins and minerals that are unlikely to pose a risk of adverse health effects. The SCF is responsible for ensuring that its review is consistent with the principles of scientific risk assessment.

The Commission intends to include in its proposal for a directive on fortified foods the principles and criteria to be taken into consideration for defining maximum limits for added vitamins and minerals. In view of the early stage of the preparation of the above proposal the Commission is not in a position to give details on these principles and criteria. One of these principles, for example, will be the basic principle of food law, namely that the products resulting from the addition of vitamins and minerals should be safe. Potential intakes from all food sources will also be one of the criteria that will have to be considered.

On the basis of the upper safe levels derived through scientific risk assessment by the SCF and applying the defined criteria and principles as part of risk management assessment, maximum limits of vitamins and minerals in the fortified foods will then be set.

2. Commission Directive 1999/21/EC of 25 March 1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes(1) does indeed include a list of vitamins and minerals that should be present in these products. The SCF adopted on 12 May 1999 an opinion on nutritional substances that may be added to foods for particular nutritional uses. That report includes a list of vitamins and minerals similar to that included in Directive 1999/21/EC. These lists will serve as the basis for establishing the list of vitamins and minerals that may be added to fortified foods.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1822/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(7 June 2000)

Subject: Follow-up to the Lisbon European Council decision on the outermost regions

The Lisbon European Council called on the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, proposals for the implementation of the Commission's report with regard to Article 299(2) of the Treaty.

Could the Commission present its intended timetable for doing so?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-0413/00 by Mr Costa Neves and H-0440/00 by Mr Casaca during question time at Parliament's Mai 2000(1) and Juni 2000(2) part session.

(1) Debates of the Parliament (Mai 2000).

(2) Debates of the Parliament (June 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Road tunnel at the port of Olbia, Sardinia

In reply to my Written Question E-2039/99(1) about the Olbia tunnel, the Commission stated that the Italian authorities must carry out a preliminary assessment to determine whether this project which falls within category 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC(2) should be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. Construction work in the tunnel is already in progress.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that this preliminary assessment is carried out as quickly as possible? Would it not agree that infringement proceedings should be brought against Italy for violation of the above directive, given that a preliminary assessment is obligatory for projects listed in the annexes to that directive, in respect of which the Member State has discretionary powers, as confirmed by the Court of Justice(3).

As I also stressed in Written Question 2039/99, responsibility for constructing the tunnel was, in breach of the 1980 port master plan, assigned by ANAS (the Italian highways authority) to the Roman firm Tor di Valle without any call for bids.

Does the Commission therefore not consider that the fact that the contract to build the tunnel was awarded without an open invitation to tender constitutes a breach of European public procurement legislation(4)?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 73.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) The Court of Justice judgment of 2 May 1996 in Case 133/94.

(4) Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission has opened a file on the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member and has requested detailed information. The situation will be assessed on the basis of the response of the Italian authorities.

As for the possible action by the Commission in order to ensure the correct application of Community law, the Commission powers are limited to those conferred by the EC Treaty. The Commission, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law relevant to the specific case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/00

by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Post-clearance recovery of customs duty on textile products imported from Bangladesh

Following a visit to Bangladesh by a Community delegation towards the end of 1996 with the aim of checking 15 000 certificates of origin, form A, issued between the end of 1993 and mid-1996, the

customs authorities of each Member State were asked to undertake post-clearance recovery of duty for those certificates which (1) had clearly been falsified or related to goods not produced in Bangladesh and (2) had been obtained on the basis of false declarations to the Export Promotion Bureau by the manufacturers.

Bangladesh recognised the problems arising with the issue of certificates of origin (form A) and inadequate checking of them. Moreover, the importers in the European Union were apparently only informed of the problems with the Bangladeshi authorities at a very late stage.

Is it true that the Commission is currently considering a proposal to exonerate the importers from payment of certain customs duties on grounds of exceptional circumstances? If so, what measures will be taken, and to what period will these measures relate? If not, will the Commission take measures in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

It is true that customs duties relating to goods imported under cover of 15 000 certificates of origin issued by the Bangladeshi authorities between 1994 and mid-1996 have been declared payable, following the decision by the Bangladeshi authorities to withdraw (cancel) the certificates in question a decision taken in circumstances described in the Honourable Member's question. The demand for such payment is entirely in line with the provisions of EEC Regulation No 2454/93(1).

A Community delegation visited Bangladesh in December 1996 on an administrative cooperation and investigation mission. There, they were able to confirm that the suspected irregularities had in fact taken place. On the basis of the evidence they gathered, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal in April 1997(2).

Between June and August 1998, Bangladesh was struck by a natural catastrophe (floods) which had a substantial and damaging impact on both the economic life of the country and the work of its administrative authorities. The Commission is presently considering whether these events might be held to constitute exceptional circumstances, within the meaning of the regulation cited above.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2) OJ C 107, 5.4.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0662/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Fifth Action Programme on equal opportunities for women and men

Following the discussion of 22 February last with Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou on the Fifth Equality Opportunities Programme:

1. How does the Commission, given that this action programme is scheduled to be adopted at the end of 2000 or the beginning of 2001, envisage its implementation in 2001?

2. How does the Commission, given that it envisages the Fifth Programme covering both mainstreaming activities and positive action, intend to divide the funding between these two areas?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

As the member of the Commission responsible for Employment and social affairs mentioned in the discussion in the women's rights committee on 22 February 2000, the proposal for a new framework programme on gender equality, covering the period 2001 2005 is scheduled to be presented for adoption before Summer 2000. Both the Portuguese and the French presidencies have introduced this subject in their respective agendas in order to ensure the adoption of the new programme by the Council on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty, so that it can be implemented in 2001.

With regard to the funding of the new programme, this will reflect its combined approach linking specific actions to redress inequalities that women experience, and gender mainstreaming. Under this new approach, the Commission will be invited to identify its activities to promote gender equality (be it mainstreaming policies or positive action) both in terms of content and expenditure, the new programme being the umbrella for all Community policies that can make a contribution to the goal of achieving gender equality. In addition, the new programme will include a series of horizontal and co-ordinating actions to ensure internal consistency and effectiveness as well as monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Actions which cannot be funded under other budget lines will be presented under the form of a Council decision for an action programme equipped with a specific budget line (B3-4012).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Dutch legislation on termination of pregnancy

Is the Commission aware of the proposed changes in Dutch legislation allowing abortion in pregnancies over 24 weeks on the grounds that the babies have a disability and does the Commission consider that such a law would be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

The Commission has not been informed and is not aware of any proposals for changes to Dutch law with regard to abortions to be allowed after the 24th week of pregnancy. In any event, the Commission generally does not think it appropriate to deal with hypothetical questions, such as those that might be raised by draft laws that may or may not be enacted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0806/00

by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Role of the Commission representative during official European Parliament visits

In view of the various different practices followed in respect of the role of the Commission representative during official visits by representatives of the European Parliament, could the Commission explain whether there are any rules governing the role of the Commission representative during official visits to third countries by parliamentary bodies, particularly as regards matters such as organisation, protocol, participation, etc?

Could the Commission also say whether there are any rules on its participation in meetings of parliamentary committees and interparliamentary delegations in Brussels, when issues are discussed for which its presence might by useful in providing information relevant to Parliament's work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

The role of the head of delegation of the Commission in third countries during official visits for the Parliament is defined in the Manual of operational procedures.

This role involves, inter alia, meeting the delegation of the Parliament on arrival in the country, providing (within reasonable limits) logistical support, briefing them on the situation in the country and on particular points of interest and accompanying the delegation from Parliament on their visits. It can also involve assistance, where needed, with local media contacts and where possible, offering appropriate hospitality.

The Commission adopted in 1999 a communication to the Council and Parliament in which it stated that heads of delegation could appear before parliamentary committees and inter-parliamentary delegations in the same way as officials of the Commission based at headquarters do. On such occasions they could answer specific questions concerning the exercise of their functions. The Commissioner in change of external relations has encouraged heads of delegations to offer, during visits to headquarters, to brief the relevant committee or delegation on the state of relations between the Union and the country or countries to which he is assigned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Greyhounds in Spain and Ireland

Greyhounds raised for racing in Ireland are frequently killed or exported to Spain once they have come to the end of their racing career. Once in Spain these animals are often poorly treated and the Spanish authorities do not intervene to ensure standards are maintained.

In the past, Ireland has received EU subsidies to assist greyhound breeders. Will the Commission provide assurance that this is no longer the case? Will the Commission also indicate what measures it is taking, or intends to take, to bring about an end to the mistreatment of greyhounds in Ireland and Spain, particularly with regards to old and/or sick dogs?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0826/00 and E-0919/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Commission is very concerned about the welfare of animals and gives it a high priority. Community rules exist in respect of animals, including dogs, for their protection during transport and in relation to their use for research purposes.

Under the protocol on the protection and welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty, the Community and Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

On the other hand, the conditions under which dogs like greyhounds are kept and raced within Member States are not regulated by Community law and in consequence this aspect is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the Member States concerned. As it is the duty of the individual Member States to find a solution to this problem, the Commission can only call upon responsible authorities to eliminate the ill-treatment to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission can confirm that no Community aid is now available for investment in greyhound rearing or racing. It is possible that Community aid is awarded for other purposes to companies, people or organisations, who rear greyhounds or are involved in greyhound racing in the Community. In such cases it is not a condition of Community funding that beneficiaries are not involved in greyhound rearing or racing and the Commission has no information on such beneficiaries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0734/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Construction of an underground car park in Piazza Lorenzini in Rome

In the Portuense district of Rome, where a building recently collapsed, the local authorities have issued a permit for the construction of 80 underground garages in Piazza Lorenzini.

The subsoil of the whole area consists of tufa caves and galleries and is particularly unstable, but despite the collapse of the building it does not seem that the subsoil has been properly analysed or a hydro-geological inspection carried out. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a need for parking spaces in the area, since there are already sufficient numbers of them. The work will also mean cutting down some tall trees several decades old in one of the few green spaces in the district. For all these reasons the inhabitants are strongly opposed to the project and have spontaneously set up a number of committees. The Rome city authorities have, moreover, not requested a prior assessment of the project from the XVth administrative district, which is competent for that area.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that the project is of the kind for which an environmental impact assessment is compulsory, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC(1) and subsequent amendments;

2. whether it does not consider it appropriate to contact the competent national authorities in order to ascertain whether the project should be carried out, not least in view of the opposition from local residents?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-0243/00(1).

(1) See page 108.