ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0694/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: European Investment Bank loan to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake in Attica

The European Investment Bank approved a loan of GRD 300 billion in response to an application from the Greek Government following the earthquakes in Attica. Has that loan been disbursed? If not, what kind of problems were involved? What does the European Investment Bank intended to do in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

The European Investment Bank (EIB) has signed, on 9 December 1999, a loan contract of 300 million for urgent reconstruction in the greater Athens area, hit by a devastating earthquake on 7 September 1999. The loan was in support of the Earthquake Reconstruction Programme (ERP), directed and co-ordinated by the Ministry of National Economy in co-operation with other Ministries. The funds were made available for the reconstruction of public and municipal facilities, industrial and commercial buildings and private sector housing destroyed or damaged by the earthquake. Financing was planned to be phased over a period of two to three years. According to the Finance Contract, the Ministry of National Economy acting as the borrower had to provide to the Bank allocation requests for the entire loan amount by 10 March 2001.

On 15 December 1999, a first instalment of 150 million was disbursed under this Contract, leaving an undisbursed balance of another 150 million.

The Ministry has submitted, on time, a complete list of schemes for allocation, justifying utilisation of the entire loan amount. According to the Finance Contract, disbursement of the remaining loan amount could be made in line with the work progress of the various schemes involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Comitology costs

I should like to return to my Written Question E-2529/99(1) to the Commission, which has still not received a full answer.

According to the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible for implementing the decisions of the Council. The Council has this process supervised by committees of national experts.

What was the cost of advisory committees, management committees and regulatory committees in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000?

What budget is provided for these committees in 2001?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 76.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The table below shows the amounts committed to cover expenditure on committees during the period 1997-2000 and the commitment appropriations provided for that purpose in the 2001 budget.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1358/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Xerox restructuring and consultation

Is the Commission aware of the failure by Xerox in Venrey in Holland, Dundalk in Ireland and Mitcheldean in the UK to consult with the workers regarding their current restructuring plans? In the light of the fact that Marks and Spencers in France have been forced by the French courts to suspend the closure of their stores until the restructuring proposals have been done in consultation with their workers, does the Commission not feel that Xerox should be legally bound to suspend their restructuring plans until they have legally consulted their workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01(1). It has no further information on the failure by Xerox in Venrey (Holland), Dundalk (Ireland) and Mitcheldean (United Kingdom) to consult with the workers regarding their current restructuring plans.

As far as the Honourable Member's question concerning sanctions in case of serious infringements of the right of employees to be informed and consulted is concerned, the Commission wishes to highlight, that in its proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community(2), the Commission proposed a provision which does not have a precedent in the Community directives on employee information and consultation. It states that in the case of a serious breach of the Directive, e.g. total absence of information and/or consultation before a decision being taken or publicly announced, or the withholding of important information or provision of false information affecting the effectiveness of the procedure, such decisions should not have legal effects on the employment contracts of the employees concerned until the moment when the employer has fulfilled its obligations or, if this is no longer possible, appropriate compensation has been fixed.

On 11 June 2001 the Council reached agreement on a compromise text for a common position. In this compromise the Council did not accept the Commission proposal for more stringent sanctions. The Commission will press for final adoption of this important Directive including the proposed sanctions

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 19.

(2) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Dumping of hazardous waste by the enterprise Española del Zinc S.A. (Cartagena, Spain)

The Spanish Naturalists' Association of the South-East (ANSE) has denounced the presence of carcinogenic products at the industrial waste dumping-ground of the enterprise Española del Zinc S.A. (Cartagena, Murcia province, Spain). The substances dumped include arsenic, chromium, nickel, lead and others.

Can the Commission ask for information as regards any measures guaranteeing that this dumping-ground does not constitute a danger to public health or the environment and that the relevant Community legislation is being correctly applied, with particular reference to Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on waste in general and Directive 78/319/EEC(2) on the elimination of toxic and hazardous waste?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has sent the Spanish authorities a request for information on the dumping-ground mentioned in the Written Question in order to check that Community legislation is being correctly applied in this instance.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with Community legislation in this instance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0788/01

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Excessive bureaucracy and financial costs when re-registering a motor vehicle in Spain

1. Does the Commission intend to reduce the cumbersome excess of bureaucratic red-tape that vehicle owners encounter when trying to re-register a car in Spain? (Required visits to the town hall, the tax office, the Spanish MOT, the competent transport department, a special engineerings office for a technical examination of the car and a licensed workshop)

2. What is the Commission's opinion of the resulting high charges of about 100 000 Pesetas (DM 1200) in total that vehicle owners must pay the bodies listed above?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

In view of the many complaints received in recent years, the Commission has the opportunity to examine the administrative obstacles encountered by European citizens in Spain when registering a vehicle previously registered in another Member State.

In this context, it should be pointed out, firstly, that following a number of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission, the Spanish authorities amended their legislation on the registration of vehicles in 1999 to bring it into line with the case law of the Court, based on the relevant Commission interpretative communication(1). Thus, the Spanish authorities adopted the Real Decreto 1204/1999 of 7 July, the Instruction 98/V-20 of the Directorate-General for Transport and the General Vehicles Regulation (Real Decreto 2822/1998), which have substantially simplified the procedure for registering vehicles imported to Spain.

Following this simplification and according to the information provided by the Spanish authorities to the Commission, it appears that any registration procedure can be completed in a matter of days and without any excessive charges, provided that the vehicle owner fulfils certain requirements (successful technical inspection, payment of taxes, etc.).

The procedure takes longer and is more expensive in cases where the vehicle presented for registration has not previously been formally approved in a state of the European Economic Area. Indeed, in such a case the national authorities may require that the vehicle be subject to individual type-approval, which must not consist of destructive tests. In these specific cases, the Commission recognises the need for individual type-approval on condition that there are no excessive charges and that documents issued in other states of the European Economic Area are taken into account.

The specific example of high charges, mentioned by the Honourable Member, seems to refer either to the procedure before simplification or to cases in which individual type-approval is necessary. If new complaints were to reveal that high charges were still being levied following the above-mentioned administrative simplification, other than in cases of individual type-approval, the Commission will not fail to investigate such cases as necessary to ensure compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Protection of Orthodox Christian monasteries in Kosovo

Many monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo are being threatened with destruction by Muslim extremists and being targeted in the inter-ethnic conflict on the pretext of being a vestige of Serb presence.

The Holy Trinity Monastery in Musutiste has already been completely destroyed, while the following are seriously at risk: the Orthodox Monastery of Gracanica, the Mother of God Cathedral in Ljevisa, the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin in Lipljan, the Monastery of the Pec Patriarchate together with the churches of the Holy Apostles, Saint Mary Hodegetria and St Dominic, and the Decani Monastery.

In the light of the above, what measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the monasteries and orthodox churches in Kosovo, which are part of the heritage of European and Christian civilisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The protection of Serb Orthodox religious sites in Kosovo is a matter of considerable concern to the international community. The Commission strongly condemns the attacks that have taken place against such sites. The protection of religious sites in Kosovo is not, however, a matter for the Commission. The Commission welcomes the fact that the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo - KFOR - has devoted and continues to devote considerable troop resources to the round the clock protection of patrimonial sites in Kosovo, which underline the importance of this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/01

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: VAT on restaurants

Traditional and fast food restaurants are subject to different VAT rates in the various Member States.

In the European Union as a whole, 8 out of 15 countries now apply reduced rates to traditional restaurants equivalent to those applicable to fast food outlets.

In France demonstrations are currently being held to call for a reduced VAT rate to be applied to traditional restaurants as well as to fast-food catering.

The retention of a high VAT rate would harm traditional restaurateurs, their staff and their customers, while a reduced rate would permit this dynamic, job-creating sector to develop.

Does the Commission envisage taking any action in this area? Why not propose a directive seeking to apply a reduced rate of VAT to traditional restaurants as well as to fast food outlets in all the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2001)

Under current Community law in this matter the standard minimum VAT rate of 15 % is applicable to restaurant services (see Article 12(1) of the 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(1)).

Member States also have the option of applying a lower rate of not less than 5 % to food supplies. This is the basis on which fast food outlets are allowed to charge less VAT on take-away meals.

However, some provisions of the Directive (Article 28(2)) set out derogations which allow Member States to apply a lower VAT rate to restaurants for a transitional period, subject to certain conditions.

Member States where this applies are those which were required to raise their standard rate of VAT by more than 2 % on 1 January 1991 and those which were already applying a lower rate to restaurants at that date. They may apply or go on applying a lower rate to this sector.

It should also be noted that restaurant services would have been eligible for a lower VAT rate if, when Directive 1999/85/EC on labour-intensive services(2) was being negotiated, the Council had not amended the Commission's proposal. It was the Council that limited the scope of the proposal to an exhaustive list of eligible services, excluding restaurants.

As provided for in the Commission's communication on a new VAT strategy(3), re-examination of the temporary derogations from VAT rates and the period of their application will be among the points considered in connection with the rationalisation of VAT rates which is to follow the review scheduled for 2002 of the experiment with labour intensive services.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Latest amendment: Council Directive 2001/41/EC of 19 January 2001, plus corrigendum in OJ L 22, 24.1.2001 OJ L 26, 27.1.2001.

(2) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.

(3) COM(2000) 348 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1147/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: GDP and public enterprises

1. What are the latest available figures for the share of GDP produced in each Member State by publicly controlled or owned enterprises?

2. What was the equivalent figure for each Member State five and ten years previously?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

The European System of National and Regional Account (ESA 95), adopted in the form of a Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 dated 25 June 1996(1), does not foresee the collection of these data, and therefore, there are not official and/or harmonised date available at the Statistical Office of the European Communities.

The European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest has published on its website(2) a document titled the development of enterprises of public participation and of general economic interest in Europe since 1996 in which some non-official data related to the Honourable Member's question are included.

(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2) http://www.ceep.org/index.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0768/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Turbo pigs

What action has the Commission taken to protect European consumers in the aftermath of the turbo pigs scandals in Austria and Germany involving revelations about the illegal use on Austrian and German pig farms of antibiotics, growth-inducing hormones and vaccines smuggled into Europe from the Far East and the United States, and what measures it has taken to ensure that no animal sold within the EU has been treated with illegal substances?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996, on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products(1) requires that Member States and third countries exporting food of animal origin to the Community should control use, misuse and illegal use of veterinary medical products.

Controls can be carried out by the Member States at the farm, in the slaughterhouse or at border inspection posts. Moreover, the Commission, through its Food and Veterinary Office, evaluates the ability of Member States or third countries to carry out their controls through audits and inspections. Depending on the findings of such audits and inspections, the Commission may recommend improvements, initiate infringement procedures, delete a third country from the list of countries authorised to export food of animal origin to the Community or apply a safeguard measure.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the current framework, if properly implemented, provides the tools to ensure consumer protection from misuse and illegal use of veterinary medical products in food producing animals.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Bombing of Iraqi territory by US and United Kingdom planes.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0154 - 0154



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council (3 April 2001) Subject: Bombing of Iraqi territory by US and United Kingdom planes Does the Council consider the United Kingdom's recent participation in the bombing of Iraqi territory, supporting the United States without the Union's knowledge or agreement, to be compatible with membership of the European Union? Reply (16 July 2001) The Council refers the Honourable Member to its answer to Question E-0699/01.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1618/01

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

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Community noise abatement legislation

For the first time ever, the residents of the historic centre of Malaga have mobilised under the slogan Endless sleepless nights destroy body and soul, and

have set up a committee to protest against the circumstance that Malaga is one of the noisiest cities in Europe, with a noise level in excess of 65 decibels, the level considered harmful by the WHO.

Can the Commission give an account of the general and environmental legislation at EU level under which the public is protected against noise, given that existing noise levels are causing these Malaga residents so much damage (physical damage included) that they have decided to launch a crusade to fight this form of sound pollution?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission has received several complaints that are of a similar nature to that cited in the Honourable Member's question.

The Community has not adopted legislation about acceptable levels of noise nuisance. This type of problem is therefore currently a purely national challenge and the complainants should address their concerns to the competent authorities in Spain.

However, the Commission has launched a proposal for a Directive for the assessment and management of environmental noise(1). This was a follow up to mainly Parliament's responses to the earlier work on noise that was presented as a Green Paper(2). The proposal is currently being examined by the Parliament and the Council.

The proposal will ensure that the Member States assess levels of environmental noise and inform the public about the result of their assessment and their plans to reduce the noise nuisance.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2) COM(96) 540 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1245/01

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Pilot project to combat child exploitation

In connection with the 2001 budget the European Parliament has voted in favour of allocating 3 million euros to finance, during its first year of operation, a pilot project to combat child exploitation (heading B5-804), in particular by financing an information campaign to combat child exploitation and, in particular, paedophilia in the 15 Member States.

Would the Commission say what has been done so far and what is to be done in the future in order to implement the above project, and what is the intended timetable?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

During the first and second readings of this budget line in Parliament, the Commission pointed out that this initiative overlapped with actions already pursued under the existing line B5-802, covered by the existing legal base of the Daphne programme. This programme was adopted under co-decision. The financial framework thus constitutes, according to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999, the primary reference for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure. The latter undertakes not to depart from the amount for such actions unless new, objective long-term circumstances arise for which explicit reasons are given, with account being taken of the results obtained from implementing the programme.

Consistent with this, the Commission has carefully examined how best to meet the objectives underlying the budget line proposed while at the same time avoiding duplication and taking appropriate account of the human resources available to it for this purpose. It has decided to raise the profile of this year's Daphne call for proposals by including among the priorities the topics of paedophilia and child sexual abuses and exploitation. This will allow the Commission to treat proposals received under these headings in the same way and in parallel to the Daphne ones. By doing so, it will allow the Commission to use money from that budget line before the end of 2001.

The ultimate date for receipt of proposals was 28 May 2001. The evaluation of the proposals takes place during the summer and the accepted projects should be able to start around November-December 2001.