ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Postponement of new cotton regulation

Although it is the end of May and the cotton crop has long since passed the planting stage, the new cotton regulation has not yet been published. According to reports from the Council of Agriculture Ministers held on 24 April 2001, a decision was taken to introduce provisions for increasing the coresponsibility levy on surplus production, which are different and less favourable than both the current provisions and the Commission's proposal and were unknown to cotton-growers at the time of planting their crops.

In view of the fact that the Commission has repeatedly in the past adopted legislation on the basis of farmers' need to be informed in good time of the provisions which will apply to the crops they grow (COM 576/1999(1), amending the regulation on flax and hemp), will it postpone implementation of the new cotton regulation since cotton growers were unaware at the time of planting their crops of the differences from the Commission's proposal and of the higher fines laid down by the new cotton regulation?

(1) OJ C 56 E, 29.2.2000, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Reducing the guide price for unginned cotton where the guaranteed national quantities are exceeded has been a key feature of the aid scheme for cotton for many marketing years.

The proposal to adjust the system of aid for cotton presented by the Commission on 13 December 1999(1) has been published in the Official Journal(2). The substance of that proposal, and in particular the provisions adjusting the reduction in the guide price, was therefore public knowledge several months before the normal time of sowing referred to by the Honourable Member. Under the circumstances, the Commission considers that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations has been observed as far as the operators are concerned.

The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it is not in a position to defer a date of entry into force decided by the Council.

(1) COM(1999) 492 final.

(2) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Employment and Social Affairs

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Employment and Social Affairs provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Finland)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Finland have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Finland have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/01

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Equal opportunities for men and women

The Third European Study on Working Conditions, which relates to the year 2000, does not paint a picture which could be described as satisfactory in the case of the efforts being made to achieve equal opportunities for men and women.

The European Foundation considers that sex discrimination is still prevalent and that it adversely affects working women.

This discrimination is particularly at the upper end of the job spectrum.

Is the Commission intending to devise or implement further programmes designed to promote genuine equality of a kind which has manifestly not been achieved in occupations in which senior positions are habitually occupied by men?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the third European survey carried out by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in 2000.

Indeed, the results of this survey clearly show the need for a full debate on the quality of work in Europe, in the current climate of increased competition and changing employment patterns, including the gender equality aspects.

With regard to whether the Commission intends to pursue its efforts to promote gender equality in occupations where the senior positions are usually held by men, the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member of the on-going nature of work in this area through the Community framework Strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) and the related programme. This programme envisages five areas of intervention, namely gender equality in economic, social and civil life, as well as equal participation and representation, and gender stereotyping. For the year 2001-2002 the priority theme for projects and activities is equal pay, followed by reconciliation between family and work, women in decision-making and gender stereotyping. Moreover, through the fourth pillar of its guidelines which expressly deals with the issue of equal opportunities for women and men, the European Employment Strategy has given a significant impetus to attain gender equality. It is with the use of those tools and the political commitment of Heads of Government as set out in the recent conclusions of the Stockholm European Council that the objectives of the Community in respect of gender equality will be visibly promoted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Tax discrimination against the employment of personnel leased from other parts of the Community

Up to now, in Austria, in the case of personnel leasing companies, the municipal taxes payable to local authorities have been calculated on the basis of the wages paid.

As of 1 January 2001, on the basis of Article 20 of Federal accompanying law 2001, BGBL 1, 142/2000, firms which have been supplied with staff by a personnel leasing agency are obliged to pay municipal taxes of 70 % of the placement fee. As additional costs and a profit margin are thereby included in the basis of assessment, the effect is to at least double the amount payable in municipal taxes.

A worker leased by a personnel leasing agency based in another Community country to an Austrian firm to carry out work inside Austria is treated far less favourably when it comes to paying municipal taxes than a worker employed directly by the same Austrian-based company.

Even if the Austrian-based firm in question commissioned another Austrian-based electrical engineering firm, for example, to carry out repairs, a much smaller amount of municipal taxes would have to be paid than if the job was carried out by an electrician provided by a personnel leasing company based in another Community country.

Is this discrimination, and the placing at a competitive disadvantage of personnel leasing companies based in other Community countries, permissible under Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0411/01(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See page 22.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1075/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Allegations of police brutality in the Czech Republic

Is the Council aware of the allegations of police brutality in the Czech Republic during the meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Prague in September 2000? Following the violation of the rights of the people detained after the protests, what does the Council intend to do to ensure that the Czech Republic investigates all complaints of torture and ill-treatment in an impartial manner?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Council has received no specific information concerning allegations of police brutality in the Czech republic during the meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Prague in September 2000.

The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. With regard to the Czech Republic, the Council notes that the Commission's 2000 Regular Report on the Czech Republic's progress towards accession concluded that the country continued to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. It can be noted in particular that the Czech Republic has continued to develop its internal institutional framework in the field of human rights by following the establishment in 1998 of a Human Rights Commissioner with the creation in February 2000 of the office of the Public Protector of Rights (Ombudsman), who is empowered to deal with a range of matters including complaints concerning the police.

If it turns out that there has been a violation of the fundamental principles mentioned above then the appropriate representations to the Czech Republic, particularly within the framework of the bodies established by the Europe Agreement, could be envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Regional Policy

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Regional Policy provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0758/01

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: EU slaughtering programme to alleviate the beef market

As part of the EU programme to support the beef market, 400 000 cattle over 30 months old are to be purchased, slaughtered and incinerated in Germany, including 12 000 in the Rhineland-Palatinate. 314 German abattoirs can apply for the tender to slaughter published by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Agriculture and Food in the Federal Gazette if they are in a position to slaughter 40 cows per hour. The stringent conditions in the EU regulation are said to be the reason for this. According to one of the largest abbatoirs in the Rhineland-Palatinate it is not possible to slaughter 40 cows per hour because of the delay caused by the brain samples that need to be taken for BSE testing. The result would therefore be cattle having to be transported to abattoirs capable of providing the appropriate capacity. However, transport costs for farmers and needlessly long transport times for livestock are supposed to be avoided.

The Commission is therefore asked to indicate:

1. What exact form do the stringent conditions take that result in 40 cows needing to be slaughtered per hour and how restrictively are these conditions implemented?

2. How does it justify these conditions and does it regard them as indispensable in the light of the above difficulties?

3. What scope does it see for counteracting specific problems of implementation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market(1) does not specify any particular type of slaughterhouse in terms of slaughtering capacity. Article 7 of the Regulation provides nevertheless that Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure proper application of the scheme, in particular compliance with the provisions of its Article 5.

According to information from the German authorities the minimum slaughter capacity per slaughterhouse was established as a consequence of the limited staff available with short notice for the on-the-spot control operations. Nevertheless, the selected participating slaughterhouses are geographically covering the main beef producing areas in Germany thereby guaranteeing a reasonable distance for transport of the animals.

(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Tax on second-hand cars imported from other EU countries

On 22 February 2001, the European Court of Justice handed down judgment in Case C-393/98. According to this judgment, Portugal is not entitled to tax second-hand cars imported from other EU countries.

Danish legislation seeks to discourage second-hand car imports from other European countries by levying a registration duty determined according to the estimated value of the imported car. Duty is calculated on the basis of prior valuation and subsequent inspection.

The duty in question can vary significantly but is usually about 200 %. There are documented cases of 500 % duty being charged, which is clearly prohibitive even with Denmark's already high taxes on new cars.

Can the Commission state whether it considers the above judgment regarding Portugal to be applicable, by analogy, to the Danish duty on imported second-hand cars?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission confirms that it believes the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice on 22 February 2001 in Case C-393/98, Gomes Valente, may have implications beyond the actual dispute referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling.

The following points in particular emerge from the Commission's initial analysis:

- The Court states that in order to avoid the administrative burden inherent in a system in which actual is determined by an assessment or expert examination of every vehicle, a Member State might be able to establish, by means of fixed scales determined by statute, regulation or administrative provision and calculated on the basis of criteria such as a vehicle's age, kilometrage, general condition, method of propulsion, make or model, a value for second-hand vehicles which, as a general rule, would be very close to their actual value.

- The Court insists that even under a new system taking the above factors into account an individual must be able to challenge the administration's assessment.

- The Court points out that the principle of neutrality as between Member States does not in any way mean eliminating the competitive advantage of second-hand vehicles which could be bought more cheaply in another Member State.

These points are likely to apply to Denmark among other countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1823/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Subject: Introduction of compulsory deposit on disposable packaging in Germany

In Germany consideration is being given to changing German packaging regulations so as to introduce a compulsory deposit on disposable drinks containers.

Does the Commission consider that this arrangement is really necessary on environment policy grounds? Is the Commission aware that other recovery techniques, in particular thermal recovery, can guarantee at least as high a standard of environmental protection?

Does the Commission see this national measure as a restriction on the freedom of movement of goods within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty?

Is the Commission aware that the effect of Directive 94/62(1) was to introduce full harmonisation of packaging rules and regulations for the whole of Europe and that any departure from its provisions would only be possible in accordance with Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty, and then only if based on new scientific evidence and the existence of a problem specific to that Member State, which obviously does not apply in this case?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1774/01, E-1775/01, E-1776/01, E-1777/01 and P-1823/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The draft second amendment to the German regulation on packaging - notification of which was given in connection with Directives 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) and 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2) - was examined by the Commission in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law.

The points mentioned by the honourable Member were also considered by the relevant departments of the Commission.

In view of the fact that at its meeting of 13 July 2001 the Bundesrat accepted a proposal for a resolution put forward jointly by several Länder and did not vote in favour of the draft as notified to the Commission, the issue of the proposed draft's compatibility with Community law no longer arises.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1114/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: Anti-homosexual measures by the Namibian government

According to recent media reports, the President of Namibia, Sam Nujoma, has given orders to the police to arrest, imprison and deport all gays and lesbians on the grounds that homosexuality is unconstitutional.

These measures are in violation of the human rights of the citizens of Namibia and contravene the basic principles of the rule of law, and must, therefore, be considered totally unacceptable by the international community.

The EU must condemn these decisions of the Namibian government, call for their immediate reversal and take action to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizens of Namibia, including their rights of sexual preference, are respected in full.

In view of the fact that Namibia is a signatory of the Cotonou Agreement and given the Agreement's provisions concerning respect by the parties for democratic principles and human rights, can the Council state what urgent action it intends to take to oppose these decisions by the Namibian government and demand their immediate reversal?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

In reply to the question raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council can inform him that the EU has instructed the local Presidency representative to carry out a demarche in Windhoek stating the EU's concern about threats and verbal attacks against minorities in Namibia. The EU finds such official statements against minorities, inter alia against homosexuals, unacceptable and takes them to indicate worrying signs of intolerance.

The EU finds that these statements and actions contrast with the politics of reconciliation, tolerance, harmony and unity in diversity adopted by the Government of Namibia after independence and encourages the Government of Namibia to maintain its respect of human rights.

The EU considers that the offensive statements against minorities in the country damage confidence in Namibia's future and undermine the Government's laudable efforts to attract foreign investment, develop the tourist industry and improve the living standards of the Namibian people.

The content of this demarche may subsequently be issued as an EU declaration and once the reactions of the Namibian government to the demarche are known, the EU will revert to the matter if necessary.

The Council has also taken note of the resolution adopted by the European Parliament at its session on 5 April 2001 in Strasbourg on the rights of homosexual persons in Namibia, which the European Parliament intends to transmit to the government of Namibia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Right of Resale.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0016 - 0016



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2001) Subject: Right of Resale Does the sale price net of tax, on which basis the right is to be claimed in accordance with the draft Directive, include capital gains tax or its equivalent, and how is this to be calculated in a resale involving several different national tax laws? Joint answer to Written Questions E-0257/01, E-0259/01, E-0261/01 and E-0263/01 (13 July 2001) The questions asked by the Honourable Member relate to matters which remain the responsibility of the Member States and answers will therefore depend on the measures adopted by Member States when implementing the Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, as well as on other relevant provisions of national law.