ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0416/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Lower rate of VAT on recombinant products

Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to make a proposal for the lower rate of VAT to be applied to recombinant blood products and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

For VAT purposes a distinction is made between different types of products derived from blood.

Some products derived from blood or human plasma, such as albumin, coagulation factors and immunoglobulins, are considered medicinal products (in accordance with Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 june 1989)(1).

Under Article 12(3)(a) and Annex H, Category 3, of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC)(2), VAT may be applied to such products at a lower rate.

Recombinant blood products (obtained through genetic engineering, not extracted from human blood) are medicinal products because they fall under Part A of the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93(3), which requires a marketing authorisation to be granted under the centralised Community procedure. As such, they are also charged at the lower rate of VAT.

Labile blood derivatives such as plasma and blood cells of human origin, on the other hand, are not considered medicinal products. They are thus taxed at the standard rate of VAT, while whole blood is exempt from VAT.

It might be appropriate to review this anomalous situation, where whole blood is exempt but labile blood derivatives are charged at the standard rate. The Commission is currently examining the matter to see what the practice is in the different Member States.

The issue will be considered in the framework of a forthcoming review of the scope of the lower rates of VAT, and appropriate proposals made for a more uniform VAT regime for transactions involving blood products.

(1) OJ L 181, 28.6.1989. Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 June 1989 extending the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products and laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma.

(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Directive 1999/85/EC (OJ L 277, 28.10.1999).

(3) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Turkish ministers' disagreements and concerns about Akkuyu European strategy for nuclear safety

The Turkish Environment Minister, Ms Aykut, stated at the conference in Mersin on 2 February 2000 that she was not fully informed about the dangers arising from the construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu, that comprehensive information on the power plant had not been provided and that she was personally opposed to the construction of a nuclear power station. The Turkish Minister for Tourism, Mr Mumcu, expressed similar opposition in the newspaper Cumhuriyet, emphasising that Akkuyu is only 120 kilometres from the tourist beaches of Mersin. In addition, Mr Ulug, professor at Izmir University, has said that the stance adopted by those who favour the construction of a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area is an outrage. Finally, Greenpeace spokesperson Ms Keskin has stated that in the event of an accident radiation would contaminate not only Turkey, but also Cyprus, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa and even the Caucasus.

1. Could the Commission say what its position is with regard to the above statements, which very clearly demonstrate opposition to and pronounced unease over the planned construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu and also over the consequences that this will have for the environment, tourism and the health of millions of citizens living in southern Turkey and neighbouring countries, including EU citizens, since the region where the plant will be established is one of considerable seismic activity?

2. In view of the Council decision that Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States and the positions adopted by the Council, the Commission and Parliament concerning nuclear safety and enlargement, what action will the Commission take to prevent the construction of a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area, which the Turks themselves describe as an outrage?

3. Is it possible for Community funding to be given to support energy sector activities for the development of nuclear power stations in earthquake-prone areas within the framework of the customs union and the regulations concerning economic and social development with Turkey, when there are such crucial concerns and when Parliament has expressly called on Turkey to respect the principles of sustainable development?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to the oral question H-0781/99 that was asked by Mr Souladakis during the January 2000 session question time(1).

The Commission would add that it has no intention of using Community funds to support in any way the building of nuclear reactors in Turkey.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (January 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0730/00

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: Provisions in support of poultry breeders affected by avian influenza

In December 1999 poultry farms in a number of regions of Italy, including Lombardy, Friuli, Sardinia, Emilia Romagna and, in particular, the Veneto, were hit by the spread of avian influenza.

In compliance with Italian and Community legislation there was an immediate response to the European Reference Centre's announcement that the virus was particularly virulent and measures were adopted to contain and eradicate the epidemic. This resulted in the destruction of all birds on the infected farms and the demarcation of protection and surveillance areas.

It is estimated that avian influenza has led to the deaths of more than 5 million chickens and laying hens, which is having enormous repercussions, both social and economic. The damage has affected not only the infected farms, which have lost income for every bird killed, but has involved the whole poultry sector, with negative repercussions on exports to international markets.

During the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers held on 24 January last, the Italian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry explained to the other ministers the problems the disease is causing the farms involved. The meeting also offered an opportunity to consider a number of measures aimed at compensating producers for the indirect damage caused by the epidemic.

The Italian Minister Mr De Castro therefore asked Commissioner Fischler to launch the procedure for drawing up support measures for the Italian market in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75(1).

Can the Commission therefore say what stage has been reached in the procedure, what measures will be adopted to compensate the producers so adversely affected and by what deadline they will be implemented, in view of the urgent need to respond to the poultry sector's problems?

(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

The Commission is following with concern the evolution of avian influenza in Italy. From mid December 1999 until 3 March 2000, more than 15 million birds were lost due to this epidemic and in the most affected areas in Northern Italy a policy of complete stamping out is now being followed.

Regarding exceptional market support measures in addition to measures taken in conformity with Community veterinary legislation, the Commission undertook to make an economic assessment on the basis of detailed information to be supplied by the Italian ministry of Agriculture.

This assessment is necessary since Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) no 2771/75 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat provides that exceptional measures may be taken only to the extent that and for such period as is strictly necessary for the support of that market.

By 9 March 2000 the detailed information requested had not been made available. The evaluation procedure which has to take account of the above mentioned stamping out policy could therefore not have been started by that date.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0676/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Tourism measures

There is frequent criticism from many sources of a lack of coordination of tourism policy within the EU; the reason generally given by the Commission is that the Treaties do not provide sufficient legal basis for such measures.

Can the Commission say whether it intends in future to seek better coordination and harmonisation of the Member States' existing legislation on tourism?

Can the Commission also say what specific measures to promote tourism it has adopted to date, in particular in the area of bed and breakfast, rooms in private houses, holiday accommodation and similar structures, and what action it intends to take in this area in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its Communication of 28 April 1999 on Enhancing tourism's potential for employment(1), in which a new approach is taken concerning the Community's tourism activities. This approach is based on knowledge of the tourism sector and market and of its growth and employment potential in promoting conditions which would allow this potential to be sustained in the long term. The method used for this purpose is based on cooperation with the Member States, consultation of the economic and social operators in the tourist industry and coordination of other Community measures and programmes which impact on tourism. The Commission is aware of the many and varied aspects of tourism and regards it as an essential task to consolidate the consistent integration of these aspects with other policies, for example regional policy, transport policy, policies relating to the environment, enterprise, competition, employment and research.

The Commission believes that tourist activities at Community level must complement Member States' activities and respect the principle of subsidiarity. It does not therefore intend to harmonise the tourism legislation currently in force in the Member States unless this legislation calls the internal market into question. However, since 1996, measures taken by the Member States have been coordinated within the Advisory Committee on Tourism.

It is not the responsibility of the Commission to take specific measures concerning particular types of tourism or accommodation. Existing programmes of assistance, for example the Structural Funds, allow the Member States' authorities, the regions and the tourism business to support the most appropriate tourist activities.

(1) COM(1999) 205 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/00

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

(9 March 2000)

Subject: The Galician companies Bazan and Astano in the merger of Spanish State shipyards

The Spanish national authority responsible for industrial State holdings is considering the possible merger of the Galician shipyards belonging to the firms Bazan and Astano, to form a single civil and military ship-building company.

Does the Commission know about this and can it say whether the merger would mean that the Galician shipyards could therefore start building ships for the merchant navy once again?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

This Written Question deals with the same subject as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-94/00(1). The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to that question. As was explained in that reply, any merged company would be unable to resume merchant shipbuilding.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 176.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: The use of Nandrolone

Can the Commission comment on the implications of Council Directive 96/22/EC(1) of 29 April 1996 prohibiting the use of the precursors of Nandrolone in foodstuffs after an Italian sports governing body proved that it was to be found in an iron complex taken by athletes?

Can the Commission also confirm that the presence of unlabelled Nandrolone precursors is unlawful under Council Directive 79/112/EC(2) of 18 December 1978?

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

As the Commission replied to Written Question P-1611/99(1) by the Honourable Member, according to Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996, concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC the administering to a farm or aquaculture animal, by any means whatsoever, of substances having androgenic action, such as nandrolone, is prohibited. If residues of such substances are found in such animals or processed products derived from such animals and marketed, these should be removed immediately from the market and destroyed.

The Commission has no information about the exact nature of the products mentioned by the Honourable Member. Foods intended for satisfying particular nutritional requirements of athletes are not yet covered by specific Community legislation and national rules, where they exist, apply.

In general under Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer, all ingredients of foods should appear on the list of ingredients on the labelling of foods.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: The EU and Austria

A study carried out by the Irish Institute of European Affairs is critical of the measures taken by the other fourteen EU Member States against Austria which, it says, violate not only Community law but also the principles of democracy. The study, written by Eugene Regan, an Irish lawyer and former member of the private office of EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland, is also highly critical of the action of the Portuguese Presidency.

The main points of criticism are the interference in a democratic process, the type of action decided on by the fourteen EU States which are to be implemented not within the Union but outside this legal area, and the controversial action of the Portuguese Presidency which gave the new Austrian government no opportunity to put its views across.

The author explicitly points out that there are no grounds for the assumption that Austria is a less democratic country than Ireland or any other EU Member State.

In the light of this sound academic study:

- is the Council familiar with the study,

- if not, does it intend to obtain and examine it, and finally

- what does it intend to do to put relations with Austria back on a normal footing?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council has not examined the study to which the Honourable Member refers, and does not have a view on it. The measures to which the question refers are not binding on the Council, and the Council has not taken any view on them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Relocation of Commercial Hydraulics from England to Germany

Ultra Hydraulic Ltd. (a division of Commercial Hydraulics) has recently announced plans to close down its operation in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK to relocate to Germany. This announcement was made without prior notification to the trade unions, and the move itself will result in the loss of 252 jobs at the Cheltenham site.

Has the European Commission allocated funds to Commercial Hydraulics for this move, and has it also checked to find out whether the German Government has allocated funds to the company for this move and, if so, whether it complied with European Union legislation on State Aids? Does the Commission feel this lack of consultation about the move corresponds to the spirit or letter of the law on worker consultation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission has not received any notification from the German Government with respect to the relocation plans of Commercial Hydraulics mentioned by the Honourable Member. It has also from other sources no information concerning the allocation of funds for this move by the German Government. Therefore the Commission is not in a position to determine whether the state aid rules of the EC Treaty, in case they would apply, are respected.

Furthermore, the Commission did not allocate itself funds for this move.

The Commission has no detailed information on the steps taken by Ultra Hydraulic Ltd or Commercial Hydraulics to inform and consult workers' representatives on the closure of the Cheltenham site and the subsequent redundancies. In any case, as a result of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies(1) and the relevant British provisions implementing it, Ultra Hydraulic Ltd is clearly under the obligation of doing so before implementing any redundancies. Accordingly, it falls in the first place to the British authorities to assess whether this obligation has been respected.

Relocations or closures as such are not for the moment subject to any explicit obligation to prior information and consultation deriving from Community law. It was precisely to try to overcome this gap that the Commission presented in November 1998 a proposal establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the Community(2), which provides for permanent and regular employee involvement on strategic developments as well as the foreseeable evolution of employment within companies. The Commission is actively seeking an early adoption of this proposal.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0090/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Milk quotas in Galicia

According to reports in the Galician press, a spokesman for and senior representative of the Commissioner responsible for Agriculture and Fisheries (namely, the recently appointed Director-General of Agriculture) has stated that Galicia is not going to be granted an increase in its milk quota and should just be grateful for its small share of the 550 000-tonne increase granted to Spain for this and subsequent years. This is in spite of the fact that he is well aware (as any senior Commission representative should be) that Galicia has a clearly inadequate milk quota and is therefore unable to modernise its agricultural sector without putting farms out of business which are potentially capable of reaching a productivity level similar to the European average, with the result that Galicia could achieve a production performance comparable with that of countries and regions such as Ireland and Brittany.

What rural development strategy could be followed by a region such as Galicia which is denied the opportunity to increase its milk production, even though that would be the principal and the most obvious and effective way for it to pursue regional development, notwithstanding the other forms of diversification which it is practising?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Regulation on rural development contains a series of measures to promote the adjustment and development of rural areas. However, it is not the Commission but rather the national or regional authorities responsible for drawing up the region's development programme that propose the development strategy and the measures to implement that strategy in the medium term, taking account of the region's particular socio-economic situation.

The Commission's role is to examine whether the analysis made and the measures proposed constitute an adequate response to the region's restructuring and conversion needs.

With regard to milk quotas, the Honourable Member is referred to the reply to his written question E-91/00(1).

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1445/00

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Sport and the EU Treaties

In recent years increasing numbers of sports-related cases have been brought to the attention of the European Commission. This situation is complicated by the fact that the legal framework of the European Union contains no reference to sport.

Does the Commission believe it is desirable or indeed feasible to include in the IGC a protocol or annex on sport?

What form or legal weight does the Commission believe such a protocol or annex should have?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission's opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference called with a view to amending the Treaties is set out in the document entitled Adapting the Institutions to make a success of enlargement(1).

This document does not contain any references to the possible inclusion of sport in the Treaties.

(1) COM(2000) 34 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0400/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Melton Mowbray pork pies

Will the Commission grant to Melton Mowbray, in Leicestershire, the same protection of its name and regional status as it has granted to the producers of Champagne and Stilton cheese with regard to the making of the traditional, world-famous pork pies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92(1) introduced a Community registration and protection scheme for the geographical designations of agricultural products and certain foodstuffs. Wine sector products are not covered. Meat-based products such as pork pies are among the types of foodstuff to which the scheme applies.

Application for inclusion in the scheme is a voluntary matter. It would be up to a group of the relevant producers to launch the procedure for registration of the name Melton Mowbray Pork Pies under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

Article 4 of the Regulation requires submission of a specification exactly defining the product and geographical area concerned and showing how the two are linked. Compliance with the criteria set for registering the name as a geographical indication or those for registering it as a designation of origin must be demonstrated.

A decision on conformity of the application with the Regulation's requirements would not be possible unless all the necessary information had been transmitted to the Commission through the agency of the United Kingdom authorities.

A Community procedure for objection to the protection of any particular name is designed to protect the interests of other producers. This involves a notice in the Official Journal.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.