ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1835/03

by Jean-Thomas Nordmann (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Tax on spirits in Ireland

Last December, in connection with Ireland's 2003 budget, the Irish Government decided to increase duty and taxes on spirits by 42 %.

Irish duty and taxes on spirits currently amount to EUR 39,25 per litre of pure alcohol, which is double the rate for beer and cider (EUR 19,87 per litre of pure alcohol).

Close to 90 % of beer and cider consumed in Ireland is produced locally, whereas a considerable proportion of spirits is imported, in particular brandy, for which Ireland represents a major export market amounting to some 2 million litres.

What is the basis for this discriminatory measure against spirits consumed in Ireland, in particular brandy, while spirits exported from Ireland, in particular Irish whiskey, benefit from markedly lower levels of taxation in most other European countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The rates of excise duty that Member States apply to alcohol and alcoholic beverages must respect the minimum rates laid down in Directive 92/84/EEC(1) on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. Above those minimum levels, Member States are in principle free to determine the excise duty rates that they apply to each of the categories of alcoholic beverages. Thus, this directive does not require Member States to fix these rates at comparable levels per degree of alcohol.

Furthermore, the rates fixed by Member States must respect the provisions of Article 90 of the EC Treaty. This means that no Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products. Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

The decision of the Ireland to apply to spirits a much higher rate of duty per degree of alcohol than to beer or cider would not appear to infringe Article 90 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice(2). The new rate applies equally to spirits produced in Ireland and to spirits imported into Ireland from other Member States. Furthermore, as Ireland is itself an important producer of spirits, the higher rate applied on spirits would not appear to afford unlawful protection to other alcoholic beverages produced in Ireland, such as beer and cider.

The Commission intends to present in the near future a report on the rates of excise duty applied on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. This report, to be submitted pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 92/84/EEC, will consider, amongst others, the competition between different categories of alcoholic beverages.

(1) Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992, OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(2) See, in particular, the judgements of the ECJ in cases C-170/78 and C-166/98.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0804/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Calabria IRPs

Like other regions of southern Italy, Calabria has devised a regional-planning tool for the 2000-2006 planning period (namely, Integrated Regional Programmes IRPs), has allocated funding out of the planning reserve and has finally (after much delay) laid down implementing guidelines.

In those guidelines it has adjusted the planning reserve estimates, thereby causing further significant inconvenience to the officials responsible for the IRPs. This has had the effect of frustrating the high expectations generated by integrated regional planning, which is now exposed to the serious risk that funds will be automatically decommitted.

In view of the above, what action does the Commission intend to take in order to clarify this state of affairs and prevent the possible loss of funding and the failure of the IRPs in Calabria?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

In accordance with the legislation in force, the Commission continually monitors operations' progress and regularly points out to Member States the importance of carrying them out at a satisfactory speed, and the financial consequences of failing to do so.

As already stated in answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3891/02(1) the Commission therefore decided, in partnership with the national authorities, to carry out a special monitoring exercise on the Calabria Operational Programme to identify the problems relating to implementation of the measures concerned.

That exercise made it possible to identify the obstacles which were hampering progress and to consider the most appropriate solutions for relaunching the programme's operational implementation procedures.

The Commission found two main causes of delay to the Integrated Regional Projects (IRPs): the management of a new and innovative process for implementing these measures, and the complexity of the procedures employed by the region.

In order to provide practical help to Calabria in managing the process, on 11 March 2003 the monitoring committee for the Italian Objective 1 Community support framework decided to hold partnership meetings on the integrated projects and to intensify systemic measures and technical assistance for implementing the IRPs.

To simplify procedures, the managing authority for the programme has drawn up new guidelines containing a list and map of the IRPs, the financial resources available, the regional breakdown of funding, the composition of the management bodies, notes on physical and non-physical infrastructure and on aid intended for integrated regional programming, as well as the procedures for accessing resources from the European Social Fund.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 162.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1648/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: The Segway Human Transporter

The Segway Human Transporter was recently launched in Europe. It is an electric-powered scooter with two wheels on a single axis on which people may travel along the pavement in an upright position. There was great media interest in this new mode of transport in Belgium, while in the United States, too, the manufacturers succeeded in creating extensive media hype by means of a well-orchestrated media campaign. However, it now appears that the Segway HT has been responsible for a large number of accidents in the United States. The City of San Francisco has already banned the vehicle, while Oakland, Santa Cruz and Sacramento are also considering the imposition of a similar ban.

What is the Commission's opinion of the Segway HT?

In the Commission's view, where should this vehicle be driven, on the pavement or on the cycle track?

Is the Commission thinking of conducting an inquiry into the Segway HT? If so, is it thinking of imposing a ban on it?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

The Community Directives on type-approval of motor vehicles, including Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles(1) and Directive 2002/24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles(2), apply to vehicles intended to travel on the road, and to the components or separate technical units of such vehicles. As stated by the manufacturer, the Segway Human Transporter is equipped with two wheels and operated by battery power and is intended primarily for use on sidewalks and other pedestrian areas such as interiors of buildings, parks and other public areas, but not intended to travel on the road. It is therefore not within the scope of the above-mentioned Community Directives nor within the scope of any other Community Directive for the type-approval of motor vehicles.

In any case, at this stage the Commission does not intend to propose regulatory measures which, in the case of a mode of transport which can be used only over very short distances, would more properly be a matter for local and national authorities.

(1) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992.

(2) OJ L 124, 9.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1834/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: BSE

Can the Commission advise on European Union statistics for BSE testing of cattle:

(a) aged between 30 and 36 months;

(b) aged between 27 and 30 months since 2000?

How many were tested in each Member State in categories (a) and (b)?

How many were positive in each Member State in categories (a) and (b)?

What has been the financial cost for individual Member States following the BSE epidemic?

What has been the cost to the European Union?

What plans are there for future policy in this area?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

During 2001 and 2002 an estimated 1,5 million bovine animals between 31 and 36 months of age, and 2,9 million bovine animals between 25 and 30 months of age were tested in the Union. Of these, four samples gave positive results. The number of samples tested in each Member State and their results are indicated in the table below.

The Union has contributed to the monitoring programme carried out in 2001 and 2002 with EUR 209 million. Around EUR 90 million have been foreseen for this purpose for 2003. Almost EUR 1 000 million was spent on various bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-related purchase schemes in 2001-2002, such as purchase for destruction (EUR 247 million), special purchase scheme (EUR 264 million) and over thirty months scheme (EUR 488 million). Finally, some EUR 420 million were spent on intervention in the beef sector in 2001-2002.

The Commission does not have figures on the financial cost for individual Member States following the BSE epidemic.

The measures to control BSE and protect consumer health are kept under continuous review in the light of emerging scientific evidence, development of new control methods and the outcome of inspections. Based on this information the Commission will make proposals, as appropriate.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1194/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1644/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: EU disabled parking

Can the Commission clarify the rules in relation to EU disabled parking? What are the precise rules of use? Where can individuals displaying a disabled parking sticker park? Are there any restrictions on the use of this facility?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The Union-model, parking card for disabled car users, has been progressively introduced throughout the Union following the Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities(1).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Recommendation confirmed that Member States themselves would continue to be responsible for the conditions for granting parking cards. Article 1 of the Council Recommendation stipulates in fact, that Member States should introduce a parking card in accordance with their respective national provisions, on the basis of the standardised Community model described in the annex of the Council Recommendation.

The Recommendation makes clear that the Member States themselves are responsible for issuing the cards and these authorities are best placed to make clear to users how they should be displayed.

When in use, the card is normally to be displayed at the front of the vehicle in such a way that only the front of the card is clearly visible for checking purposes.

The new card only requires holders to fill in individual details on the reverse side and not on the front. This meets the concerns of some who feared that displaying their names publicly might threaten their personal safety.

(1) OJ L 167, 12.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2073/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Disability Living Allowance

In response to my previous question P-3184/02(1) Commissioner Diamantopoulou stated that the Commission was considering a legislative proposal amending Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(2), in particular its Annex IIa. She also stated that this would be considered by the Spring of 2003.

Can the Commission inform me if this proposal has been considered, the results, and where my constituents can view this progress?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 48.

(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The Commission has prepared a legislative proposal of miscellaneous amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, including to its Annex IIa. One of the aims of this proposal is to remove from Annex IIa benefits which do not meet the criteria of being special and non-contributory as defined by the European Court of Justice. It is foreseen that this proposal will be adopted by the Commission in July 2003, and then presented to the Council and Parliament.

Once the proposal is adopted it will be published in the Official Journal, which is available in paper form and on-line.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0308/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: International fraud in the construction industry

It has emerged from recent reports that building companies not only from the Netherlands but also from other Member States, such as Germany and Belgium, have been involved in fraud in the construction industry in the Netherlands. Firms from the Netherlands have also been involved in illegal agreements on pricing and works in other Member States. There has been talk of systematic cartel agreements, price-fixing and/or forgery, that have pushed up prices and resulted in the illegal sharing out of markets. These practices have been highly damaging to governments and consequently taxpayers in a number of Member States. The formation of cross-border cartels of this kind is in breach of European regulations.

Is the Commission aware of the situation?

If so, does the Commission think that cross-border cartels have been formed in breach of European competition rules and that measures need to be taken in this sphere?

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the construction companies concerned? What can be done to compensate the injured parties?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of cases of (alleged) fraud and price fixing in the construction market in the Netherlands through the national competition authority (NMa) and the media. It also heard of the allegations that non-Dutch enterprises are involved in these practices on the Dutch market and that Dutch enterprises are involved in foreign markets.

In cases of price fixing agreements that violate Article 81 of the EC Treaty either the Commission or national authorities can treat the case. National authorities can also act upon national legislation, even when trade between Member States is affected.

The NMa is investigating a number of these cases and keeps the Commission regularly informed of its activities.

When the Commission has credible information on a cartel with an appreciable element of inter-Member State trade involved, it will act upon this information or make sure a national authority will do so.

Community legislation does not foresee compensation for parties damaged by cartels. However, both private parties and public parties can take civil legal action against perpetrators of price fixing on the basis of national procedures. The Commission encourages parties to do so as it is another means of ensuring adherence to Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: European charter for children in hospital

The questioner tabled a question (E-1464/03(1)) on the same subject in April this year and Commissioner Byrne's answer of 11 June has already been published.

However, the answer does not comment on the fact that a European Parliament resolution(2), adopted as long ago as 1986, called on the Commission to submit a proposal for a European charter on the rights of patients and for a European charter on the rights of children in hospital.

The Commission's answer also completely ignores the fact that this request by Parliament has not been met or even received an answer in 17 years!

Can the Commission therefore say whether the answer given by Mr Byrne to the previous question on the same subject (E-1464/03) means that it is deliberately ignoring and does not intend to comply with the request adopted by the plenary of Parliament?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 152.

(2) OJ C 148, 16.6.1986, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

In its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1464/03 the Commission already explained that the Community does not have the competence to come forward with proposals for a European charter on the rights of patients and for a European charter on the rights of children in hospital.

The adoption of a Resolution by the Parliament does not alter the compentences of the Union. On the basis of the text of the present Treaty, the treatment of children in hospital and their rights as patients is the sole responsibility of the Member States. The Commission is, therefore, not in a position to take action in this domain.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0465/03

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Classification of territorial units for statistics

In view of the publication of the Common Position on the establishment of a common classification for territorial units for statistics and the annex attached thereto, could the Commission please clarify the position of Gibraltar in regard to this classification and if not so classified explain why not?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The NUTS is only applicable to the economic territory of the Member States as defined for the implementation of the regulation on the Gross National Product at Market prices and the European System of Accounts (reference: citation 12 of the regulation Commission Decision 91/450/EEC, Euratom of

26 July 1991 defining the territory of Member States for the purpose of the implementation of Article 1 of Council Directive 89/130/EEC, Euratom on the harmonisation of the compilation of gross national product at market prices(1)).

Gibraltar is not part of the economic territory within the terms of the implementing rules for this decision and so is not included in the NUTS classification.

(1) OJ L 240, 29.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1802/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Air passenger health

Will the Commission give the figures for the number of deaths in the EU due to air transport crashes in each year for the last five years? Will it also estimate the number of deaths attributable to air transport in other ways (such as deep vein thrombosis)? Is the Commission satisfied that it is treating air transport health issues with enough priority?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The number of passengers killed in commercial flights operated by Community carriers are given below:

- 1998: 46;

- 1999: 56;

- 2000: 100;

- 2001: 111;

- 2002: 18.

(Source: Airclaims)

As for deaths caused by deep vein thrombosis attributable to air transport, this is not possible to estimate at the present time. Deep vein thrombosis is linked to a number of factors and present data does not make it possible to distinguish air transport from the others. However, the Commission is co-financing studies designed to clarify the link between deep vein thrombosis and air transport, under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. In early 2005 these will give results, which should allow conclusions to be drawn on the link between air transport and deep vein thrombosis. In parallel, the Commission has undertaken studies on the quality of cabin air and the health of aircrews, that might form the basis of standards.

In addition to these initiatives, the Commission is contributing to a programme of work launched by the European Civil Aviation Conference on the health of air passengers, including the collection of data on medical incidents and the harmonisation of medical services to passengers.