ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

The normal rates of excise duties applicable to diesel used as a propellant are currently EUR 389 and EUR 440 for thousand litres in France and Germany respectively. Germany, according to § 1 Abs. 2 Mineralölsteuergesetz i.V.m. § 1 Abs. 2 Nr 1 Mineralölsteuerdurchführungsverordnung, grants a full tax exemption to 97 % pure biodiesel sold in Germany. In practise, this tax exemption applies mostly to methyl esters having a vegetable origin (including rapeseed). The German legislation is based on Article 8(2)(d) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1). The Commission has not yet examined in depth whether this article is appropriate; however, the Commission's proposal for a special regime for the taxation of biofuels, which is likely to be adopted in the coming months, has taken this specific situation by a so-called ‘grand-fathering’ clause (Article 8c paragraph 3) into account. This clause would allow Member States, which on 1 January 2001 totally exempted products solely made up of biofuels, continue to totally exempt these until 31 December 2003. France has been authorised by the Council to grant permits for the application of a differentiated rate of excise duty to the fuel mixture ‘diesel/vegetable oil esters’. The reductions in excise duties cannot exceed EUR 35,06/hl or EUR 396,64/t for vegetable oil esters. The French legal arrangement is based on Article 25 of the amending finance law of 1997, on Decree No 98-309 of 22 April 1998 laying down the requirements for participation in the invitation to tender for the release for home use in France of biofuels giving rise to a reduction in domestic consumption tax, and on the decision of 22 April 1998 setting up the Committee for the examination of authorisation requests by biofuel production units.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/23

(2004/C 33 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3755/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Compensation to farmers for havoc wrought by bad weather

The latest spell of bad weather in the regions of Macedonia and Thessaly caused incalculable damage to crops and property and severe disruption to transport. A large part of agricultural production disappeared under water and much of the road network was paralysed as a result of defects in construction.

Will the Community provide financial aid to the above regions to help restore normal conditions as soon as possible in the areas affected by natural disasters, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 (1) of 11 November 2002?

What measures have the Greek authorities taken to commit the special financial resources required to cover the abovementioned damage?

Given that Greece has suffered similar situations in the past, will the Commission say whether any subsidies that Greece may have received pursuant to the above regulation were utilised and, if not, whether the unused portion was returned to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Commission has not so far received any application from the Greek authorities under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2) for aid to make good damage caused by the natural disasters to which the Honourable Member refers.

For aid from the Fund to be granted the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(1) of the Regulation must be met, namely that estimated damage (unless exceptional circumstances as indicated in the last subparagraph of Article 2(2) apply) is more than EUR 3 billion or 0,6 % of the Member State's gross national income and that application is made within ten weeks of the date of the first damage caused by the disaster. Help from the Fund is given for action of the types listed in Article 3 of the Regulation. Compensation for loss of agricultural production is not included.

This Regulation is of very recent date and has not yet been used to help Greece.

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: EU fishing agreements with Morocco following the latter's offer of fishing licences for 64 vessels from Galicia and other parts of Spain

Has the Commission (together with the Spanish Government or the Moroccan authorities) considered the possibility of laying the foundations for a new and different fishing agreement with Morocco, following the offer made by that country's King in respect of fishing licences for 64 vessels from Galicia and other parts of Spain, as a way of helping to compensate for the damage caused by the Prestige disaster?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Commission cannot but express its great pleasure at this warmly generous gesture to a sector severely affected by the Prestige disaster. It further reinforces the deep ties linking the Union, its Member States and Morocco.

The Commission does not at present have in mind commencement of negotiations with Morocco for conclusion of an agreement on access to Moroccan waters for fishing.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0933/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2003)

Subject: Mathematical formula

Since 1996 Greece has applied the so-called mathematical formula with the Commission's approval to select contractors for public works co-funded by the European Union. Can this mathematical formula procedure be changed, modified or improved to avoid monopolies being created and to ensure greater transparency in the award of public works contracts? If so, what could these changes, modifications or improvements consist of?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0097/03 by Mr Trakatellis during question time at Parliament's Mars I 03 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/03

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)and Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Media: mini-ads during the transmission of sporting events in Italy

More than a year ago the Commission received a complaint about the practices adopted by Italian commercial broadcasters and, unfortunately, recently also by the public broadcaster RAI, of interrupting the transmission of football matches to broadcast a large number of very short advertisements each lasting a few seconds (up to 15 per game).

These mini-ads are clearly in breach of the European rules laid down by the Community directive on the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989(1)), which clearly states that during the transmission of sporting events comprising intervals advertisements may be shown only during the intervals, i.e. between the first and second halves of football matches.

Mini-ads show how the creation of a dominant position in the advertising market has come about partly through illegal practices that have gone on for years. These practices have created serious barriers for possible new entrants, to the detriment of the public's right to pluralism of information.

This is an extremely sensitive issue for the democratic functioning of any country and, given that unlawful practices are still occurring, involving financial gains of several hundred million euro for private broadcasters and exposing Italian viewers to excessive advertising not allowed under European rules, and that the Commission apparently adopted a position upholding the complaint some time ago (cf. La Repubblica daily newspaper of 3 January 2003, p. 48).

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Has the Italian Government already replied to the pre-infringement letter from the European Commission?

2. Does this reply, if any, contain denials of the situation that was the subject of the complaint, thereby preventing the opening of infringement proceedings by the Commission?

3. Does the Commission not consider that by allowing this illegal situation to continue for such a long time, in such a sensitive sector for the democratic life of the country and the media, it may be compromising its credibility as the guarantor of the Treaties and of the application of Community law throughout the Union?

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission has not taken a final position on the complaint the Honourable Members refer to. The Commission considers that the question as to whether the practice of the Italian broadcasters referred to constitutes an infringement of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, requires thorough examination. As the written question rightly states, the Commission has addressed a letter to the Italian authorities asking them to present their observations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/03

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Child labour

According to the latest report by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), there are 211 million children aged between 5 and 14 working in the world. Of these, 186 million are doing types of work that are prohibited by various international instruments. There is equal involvement of boys and girls in these activities up to the age of 14, at which point the proportion of boys increases.

The agriculture sector exploits the largest numbers of children, followed by the informal urban economy, industry, tourism and domestic services. 8,4 million boys and girls of all ages fall into the bracket comprising the most unpleasant forms of child labour. Around 2 million of them are exploited by the prostitution and pornography industries, which are thriving in Moldavia, Romania and the Ukraine in particular thanks to organised trafficking to western Europe.

The area of the world most affected by this phenomenon is the Asia-Pacific area, which has 127 million child workers, or in other words 60 % of the estimated world total. Sub-Saharan Africa is next with 23 %, but the problem is more acute in Africa than in Asia as 29 % of the children working there are under 15. However, child labour is not confined to poor or developing countries, but concerns all the countries of the world to varying degrees. 3 % of children aged between 10 and 14 work in developed countries.

The problem of child labour remains an issue at world level. In fact, the number of children doing high-risk work is increasing markedly since around two thirds of them (i.e. 111 million children) are under the age of 15.

Given that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not explicitly prohibit child labour, how does the Commission intend to combat this phenomenon?

What measures will it take to eradicate this phenomenon in Eastern European countries that are soon to join the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission is extremely conscious of the need to ensure that all aspects of the Community labour law acquis, not least that relating to the protection of young people, is implemented and effectively enforced in the candidate countries. The Commission is currently actively engaged in ensuring that Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work(1) is implemented in the candidate countries at the earliest possible date and, at the latest, by the date of their accession to the Union.

Ongoing monitoring has shown that the Community acquis in this field had already been transposed in the majority of candidate countries. Of the ten future Member States, only the Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovenia have not introduced legislation to transpose the Directive on young people at work.

It should be noted that, according to Article 32 of the Charter, The employment of children is prohibited.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0206/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 January 2003)

Subject: Export of sheep from Spain to Greece

Each year thousands of sheep are exported from Spain to Greece for slaughter on or soon after arrival. The journeys take at least 50-60 hours.

Council Directive 91/628/EEC(1) provides that, even where vehicles attain certain standards, sheep must after 28 hours' transport be rested at a staging point. However, Commission Decision 2001/327/EC(2) concerning movement restrictions with regard to foot-and-mouth disease prohibits the use of staging points for sheep for slaughter or production. The effect of these provisions is to limit the transport of sheep for slaughter or production to an overall maximum of 28 hours. The transport of sheep from Spain to Greece for slaughter or production must breach either Council Directive 91/628/EEC or Commission Decision 2001/327/EC.

What steps is the Commission taking to press Spain and Greece to halt this trade as it involves breaches of Community law?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Member correctly, in the Commission's opinion, describes the legal situation when sheep certified for slaughter or further fattening are sent by road from the principal sheep production areas of Spain via France and Italy and the ferry crossings from Southern Italy to Greece.

Breeding sheep, however, may still transit staging points and it is not illegal to have those sheep (which have to fulfil higher veterinary standards) slaughtered after they reach their destination.

The Commission has already intervened with Greece, Spain and Italy about the matter in order to establish whether, and if so to what extent, Community law has been infringed in respect of the sheep movements in question. The Member States concerned have also been requested to confirm that all necessary steps to ensure the future respect of Community law are being taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0297/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Pension reform

A reform of EU civil servants' pensions is currently in preparation. In the course of the preparations it has become clear that the Commission will not require officials to pay the cost of pension contributions amounting to one third of the total pension cover, as laid down in the Council regulation. Consequently the bill for over two-thirds of these pension payments will come to the Member States. How does the Commission justify the fact that the full amount of the pension payments is not collected from the officials?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

According to the Staff Regulations, officials are required to finance one third of the contribution necessary for the actuarial balance of the scheme, and they always have. Nothing in the proposals made by the Commission justifies the view expressed in the Honourable Member's question that the Commission will not require officials to pay the cost of pension contributions amounting to one third of total pension cover.

Employees' contributions have been increased several times since the adoption of the EU civil service pension scheme. The last increase dates back to January 1993 and brought the total contribution to 24,75 % (one third to be borne by staff and therefore accounting for 8,25 %). An expert actuarial study carried out in 1998 showed that this overall contribution rate might prove to be insufficient in the future. The study also drew attention to the fact that the parameters to be taken into account for calculating the contribution had not been clearly defined. As a result, the components of the scheme, the actuarial method to be taken into account, and the parameters to be used (interest rates, mortality table, etc.) had not been properly identified. Without clear definitions any proposal based on inadequate hypotheses and parameters can obviously be disputed.

In its reform proposal, the Commission has consequently proposed means of giving greater clarity to the arrangements by the establishment of an objective procedure aimed at clearly specifying the components of the scheme and at ensuring the actuarial balance provided for in the Staff Regulations. This procedure is included in the proposed amendments to be made to the Staff Regulations (Annex XII).

The Honourable Member is invited to note that, in its proposal, the Commission does not advocate any new actuarial burden-sharing between the staff and the budget. Under the Commission proposal, the staff will still contribute one third to the financing of the scheme. As soon as an agreement on the parameters to be taken into account is achieved in the Council, the contribution rate will be adjusted accordingly. It is envisaged that the new contribution will be implemented from 1 January 2004, and the Commission has proposed that it be reviewed annually thereafter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0346/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Non-rational set-aside

1. What objectives is the Commission seeking to ensure by proposing that set-aside should be non-rotational?

2. How does the Commission propose that such land can be used if at all, and is it aware of the considerable problems that unused land may cause by inviting informal and unauthorised travellers' encampments?

3. How would it avoid this consequence?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

1. Set-aside has received much attention by environmentalists as an instrument with a great environmental potential. The latter will, however, emerge only if habitats on set-aside land have sufficient time to develop and if some land management in line with site-specific requirements is applied. Environmentalists have asked for some time for a fixed proportion of non-rotational set-aside.

The environmental requirements can be matched without compromising the supply management effect of set aside. This can be achieved by making set-aside non-rotational, applying land management corresponding to ecological needs, and restricting the set-aside requirement to arable land in order not to undermine the environmental value of managed pastures.

Since under certain circumstances rotational set-aside could deliver better environmental outcomes, rotational set-aside will be an option, applicable where justified on environmental grounds.

2. and 3. In the Commission's proposal establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy(1), Article 57 states that the land set aside shall be maintained in good agricultural condition but shall not be used for agricultural purposes and shall not produce any crop for commercial purposes.

With regard to the rules regarding public access to such set-aside land, since no specific Community legislation has been laid down in this domain, it is considered by the Commission to be a matter of national competence.

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0551/03

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Use of languages during the accession negotiations

I should like to thank the Commission for its reply to my question P-3442/02(1) of 26 November 2002, which I have studied with particular interest.

I note with satisfaction that since the beginning of the Accession Negotiations and at the different levels, there has been no restriction of the language regime to English or indeed to another official language of the Union and all official languages of the Union have been available for use.

However, I am also forced to note that, at present, the provisional text of the Accession Treaty, comprising 70 files, is accessible to Members only in the English version.

If all the languages have indeed been available for use, by what miracle is it only the English version which has now emerged?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 213.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Commission reiterates that, as stated in its answer to written question P-3442/02(1) by the Honourable Member, the language regime of the accession negotiations and the order in which each language version of the Accession Treaty is presented are determined by the participating States and not by the Commission.

Meanwhile the Honourable Member has no doubt noted that shortly after the English version of the Accession Treaty appeared, the other language versions were also made available.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 213.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/03

by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation on paediatric medicines

In December 2000 the Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to propose regulatory measures to improve availability of paediatric treatment. The Council acknowledged that there was a genuine deficiency in this area of healthcare. The Commission undertook to respond to this call from the Council. Although the Commission several times confirmed this undertaking during the recent debates in Parliament on the occasion of the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, the obligation to submit the draft paediatric regulation to an economic impact assessment once again raises the fear that there will be further delays in the publication of the text. The imperative deadlines that the European institutions will have to meet in 2004 could well delay the completion of this project.

Does the Commission intend to submit a proposal for a regulation on this subject in the near future?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0564/03 and P-0626/03given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission intends to present a final text of the proposal for a Regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use as soon as possible. A first draft had been prepared in September 2002. On the basis of this draft, the Member States and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency were consulted. This consultation process took longer than expected as the Member States during the Pharmaceutical Committee of November 2002 asked for a prolonged deadline for comments.

The Commission has decided that this proposal should be among the 43 important proposals within the framework of the 2003 legislative and work programme, which should undergo an extended impact assessment. The extended impact assessment is an important element of the Commission's better regulation action plan.

The Commission has now started preparing this impact assessment and intends to as swiftly as possible to conduct it in order to be able to adopt the proposal.