ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/97 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: VAT rates on transport

The Spanish government has recently reduced VAT on transport from 16% to 7%.

This decision once more raises the question of the EU-wide harmonization of VAT rates, which currently vary in the transport sector from 2% to 10%.

Can the Commission state:

1. whether it considers that the existing variations could distort the market, and whether a study exists on the subject?

2. if and when it intends to propose measures for the harmonization of VAT rates on transport in the Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1997)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties arising from the current situation regarding VAT on passenger transport. There are two main factors at play here. First, the rules governing the place of taxation (taxation at the place where the transport takes place, having regard to the distance covered; Article 9(2)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC)) ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )) are particularly difficult to implement. Second, the annexes to that Directive provide for derogations from taxation on passenger transport and for the Member States to apply reduced rates of taxation. Consequently, international passenger transport is often exempt, and some Member States also exempt all or part of domestic passenger transport. In the case of taxation, the rate applied differs significantly and implementation is particularly complex, especially where services are provided by taxable persons not established in the Member State of taxation. Clearly, this situation is prejudicial to healthy competition in the transport sector, both between Member States and between different modes of transport.

In the light of the substantial difficulties involved in taxing passenger transport within the Community, it was decided in 1995, as follow-up to the 1992 proposed on passenger transport ((OJ C 307, 25.11.1992. )), to carry out a study on the VAT arrangements and the competitive situation in the passenger transport sector. The study should be finalised before the end of 1997. On the basis of its findings and in the light of the problems currently being encountered, the Commission plans to present a consultation document on the subject in 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3410/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: Request for information from the Italian authorities concerning projects for the construction of a number of public works in Rome

In its answer to Written Question E-1971/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 131.)) the Commission said that with regard to the projects for the construction of the underground line C and the 'Castelletto-Largo Argentina' tram line in Rome, the Italian authorities had not yet replied to a request for information sent by the Commission itself in connection with failure to comply with the environmental impact assessment procedure laid down in Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.)). In the meantime, although the first requests date back more than a year, in both cases work has gone ahead in accordance with the original projects.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. what it thinks of the attitude of the Italian authorities, who for months now have been incomprehensibly silent;

2. what it thinks of the fact that, despite repeated requests, the work has gone ahead without even an explanation from the Italian authorities;

3. what other steps the Commission intends to take to secure, if not compliance with Community law, at least an explanation from Rome City Council, which is responsible for both projects?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1997)

The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is complied with in the Member States. The Commission therefore instituted infringement proceedings against Italy for the failure of Italian legislation to comply with Council Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessments (EIA). Italian legislation does not provide for an initial examination to establish whether or not it is necessary to subject projects covered by Annex II of the Directive in question to an EIA. Unlike the projects covered by Annex I which are, by definition, all subject to an EIA, these projects are only required to undergo an environmental impact assessment if, by their nature, size or location, they have a significant impact. The projects mentioned by the Honourable Member fall into the category in point 10(g) of the aforementioned Directive.

Further to the request to the Italian authorities for information on the projects mentioned in Written Question E-1273/97 by Mrs Angelilli ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997. )), the authorities in question have pointed out that these projects come under the regional jurisdiction. The regions must in fact ensure compliance with the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996, the 'Steering and Co-ordinating Act for the purpose of applying Article 40(1) of the law of 22 February 1994, No 146', which stipulates that the authorities must ensure, amongst other things, that local and regional railway, tram and metro line projects do not have features which, by their nature, size or location, require them to undergo an EIA.

The abovementioned infringement proceedings will take into account the regional aspects as the regions have not yet adopted the legislation in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3408/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: Privatization of the central dairy in Rome

For some time now the Italian monopolies commission has been investigating Rome city council's handover of the central dairy to Cirio. After the purchase of the dairy Cirio would acquire almost 70% of the milk market in the Lazio region, an excessive share which might jeopardize free competition in the sector. Furthermore, the existing relationship between Cirio and Parmalat, the two main Italian producers of milk might, in view of their shared interests, upset the market, because they have acquired a dominant position, thereby destroying the competition. All this casts a shadow over the entire sales operation carried out by Rome city council.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it knows about the investigations being carried out by the Italian monopolies commission into the privatization of the central dairy of Rome;

2. whether the takeover of the dairy by Cirio may strengthen a dominant position on the market, thereby jeopardizing free competition;

3. whether the entire operation of privatizing the central dairy can therefore be considered lawful?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1997)

At the end of 1996 the Commission received a complaint about the grant of public funds for the restructuring of Centrale del Latte di Roma and challenging the conformity of the procedure for the privatisation planned by the municipality of Rome with the Community rules on public contracts.

The matter is currently being examined, so the Commission has not yet adopted a position on this complaint.

In view of the above, the Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it is not in a position to answer the questions raised about the privatisation of this company until it has adopted an opinion on the above-mentioned complaint.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Availability of grant information on the Internet

Is the Commission aware of any proposals to provide access to grant information by way of the Internet?

Does the Commission agree that this would be an effective and easy way for interested parties to seek initial information about the existence of and availability of grants?

Would it be possible to set up a system whereby interested bodies could type in a relevant word and the search engine could retrieve all grant information containing reference to that word? The information could then be read from the screen or downloaded as necessary.

Does the Commission agree that this would save an enormous amount of wasted time and paper sending out irrelevant claim forms?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1997)

The Commission is indeed fully aware of the possibility to disseminate information about open calls for proposals, tenders and grant information.

Information about public calls for tenders and public calls for proposals launched by the Commission is available on the Tenders electronic daily (TED) database - the electronic version of supplement S of the Official journal. This database is offered via the European Commission host organisation in all official Community languages.

The service also comprises a user friendly web interface for Internet users which allows its selection of documents by keywords, by Member State, by date, etc. More than 100 000 documents are consulted from this database every month. In addition to this service the Commission operates a number of linked web servers. These servers provide free access to information about Commission initiatives in all domains. They also include the announcement of public calls for tenders and public calls for proposals as well as grant information. All these servers allow users to download the information on their personal computers.

The main server of the Commission is Europa (URL:http://europa.en.int) which provides information on all services of the Commission as well as links to web servers of the other institutions.

In addition the Commission operates the three web server I*M Europe (URL:http://www.echo.lu), Community research and development information service (CORDIS) (URL:http://www.cordis.lu) and information society project office (ISPO) (URL:http://www.ispo.cec.be) which serve specific target groups.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3955/97 by Yvan Blot (NI) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Use of mother tongue by Commission Members in plenary

On 5 November 1997 Commission Member Mr Van den Broek spoke in plenary exclusively in English. If all Members of the Commission were to do likewise, dropping their national language, English would become the de facto official language of the Commission.

For reasons of principle, viz. the equal status of the official languages within the European Union, would it not be preferable for each Commission Member to use his or her mother tongue when addressing the European Parliament in plenary sitting?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1997)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, when its Members address another Community institution, their only obligation is to use one of the official languages of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3657/97 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council (19 November 1997)

Subject: Asylum provisions

With European Union Member States applying a variety of standards and tests in relation to those seeking asylum, does the Council foresee the implementation of minimum EU-wide criteria aimed at discouraging bogus asylum seekers from claiming national state benefits?

Answer (12 February 1998)

The Council has adopted a number of measures to harmonize the procedures that Member States apply when examining asylum requests. These measures are aimed at giving fair treatment to any asylum seeker, including the possibility of not granting refugee status under the Geneva Convention of 1951 to persons who are unable to establish that they are persecuted under the terms of that Convention. In particular, the following measures have been adopted:

1. Joint position of 4 March 1996 defined by the Council on the harmonized application of the definition of the term 'refugee' in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees ((OJ C 63, 2.03.1996, p. 2. )).

2. Council Resolution of 20 June 1995 on minimum guarantees for asylum procedures ((OJ C 274, 19.09.1996, p. 13. )).

3. Resolution on a harmonized approach to questions concerning host third countries ((Doc. 4464/1/95 CIREA 3. )).

4. Resolution on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum ((Doc. 4464/1/95 CIREA 3. )).

5. Conclusions on countries in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution ((Doc. 4464/1/95 CIREA 3. )).

The Council presently monitors the implementation of these measures within the Member States and this monitoring will show whether any amendments or further measures are needed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3459/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

Giorgio DEVISONI, born on 14 December 1964 in Luino (Varese), has lodged a complaint after having been rejected by the selection board in research competition COM/R/D/3. In the complaint he maintains that it is common knowledge that the selection board did not apply the same criteria to all the candidates, given that the board, comprising representatives of the Administration and staff representatives, was unable to reach agreement on the criteria for the selection of the first 14 candidates to be taken from the reserve list containing 33 names. In order to overcome this problem, the selection board decided to adopt the quite unprecedented procedure of allowing the representatives of the Administration to choose 7 (seven) of the candidates, while the staff representatives chose the other 7 (seven). As a result, none of the leading candidates gained the approval of the board as a whole, since none of the candidates chosen by either side (Administration or staff) were considered eligible by the other side.

If the above claims are true, the competition clearly cannot be said to have been fair.

Would the Commission look into the matter with a view to clearing up any doubts or concerns in the minds of the JRC staff and unions?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)

In the case of the competition referred to, over 1 640 applications were examined by an eight-member selection board comprising four representatives of the adminstration and four staff representatives. After an initial examination of the applications, the selection board interviewed a smaller number of candidates who were best qualified to meet the requirements of the positions to be filled.

There are thirty three names on the final reserve list, which was drawn up unanimously by the members of the selection board and approved by the appointing authority. Appointment of successful candidates then depends on the availability of budgetary resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Council (14 November 1997)

Subject: Hong Kong and Tibet

In closely following developments in Hong Kong after it was handed over by the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China, is the Council taking account, with a view to drawing possible comparisons, of what occurred in the case of the '17-point agreement' which was signed by the People's Republic of China on 23 May 1951 and which, following the defeat of the small Tibetan army, promised in its title the 'Peaceful Liberation of Tibet'?

In the light of its monitoring of the situation, does the Council consider that the successive authorities in the People's Republic of China during these 46 years have respected or violated the 17 points of the agreement, and can any lessons be drawn from its behaviour for the future of the former British colony?

Answer (12 February 1998)

The issue of human rights in Tibet is traditionally given prominent attention in contacts between the European Union and Chinese authorities. The Heads of Mission of member countries' embassies in Beijing are continuously following the human rights situation of the population of Tibet.

As regards Hong Kong, the Union has repeatedly supported future stability and prosperity for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The Union has also emphasized the importance it attaches to full respect for the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people and the high degree of autonomy accorded to the Special Administrative Region under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Implementation of these, including the holding of free and fair elections to take place within the period promised by China, offers the best assurance for Hong Kong's future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3368/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Ensuring the funding of enlargement

In the chapter in the Commission's 'Agenda 2000' on the funding of enlargement it is stated that each current Member State's share of the cost of enlargement may not exceed 1.27% of its GNP. Although a surplus for distribution for structural reforms to the EU's support policy will be available partly as a result of strong economic growth, the assessment that this funding will be enough at the current level seems over-optimistic.

Recent discussions both in the Council and in the European Parliament show that it is unlikely that the membership negotiations will begin in the 'five plus one' form which the Commission proposes. This may lead to the total funding package diverging significantly in the medium and long term from the Commission's estimate.

In view of the above, does the Commission believe that its total funding package will remain under all circumstances within the framework set out in Agenda 2000 in all circumstances? How has the Commission insured, and how will it in future insure, against a situation in which the current funding estimates may turn out to have been under-estimated?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1997)

In 'Agenda 2000' ((COM(97) 2000. )), the Commission set out the conditions and assumptions underlying its belief that it would be possible to finance both the development of Community policies and the integration of the first wave of applicant countries without going above the present 1.27% GNP limit on own resources, and even maintaining a margin for manoeuvre within that limit. As that limit applies to the Community as a whole, it will be calculated after enlargement by reference to the GNP of the enlarged Community.

However, the overall financial framework table appearing in Agenda 2000 proceeds from a number of working hypotheses in relation to enlargement (number of new Member States, timing, terms of accession). One of these hypotheses is that five applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus will accede in 2002. If the enlargement followed a substantially different pattern from the one assumed by the Commission, the amounts set out in Agenda 2000 might have to be revised accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Environment education

What funds, if any, and under what budget line, are available for environmental education in developing countries such as India, Bangladesh and Nepal?

If there are any such funds, what exactly are they being used for?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1997)

There is no specific budget line available only for environment education in developing countries such as Bangladesh, India and Nepal.

Nevertheless, environment education activities could be funded under the budget line B7-6200 which covers co-operation in the field of environment. Council Regulation (EC) No 722/97 of 24 April 1997 on environmental measures in developing countries in the context of sustainable development ((OJ L 108, 25.4.1997. )) has set the legal framework for this budget line. It represents 15 MECU only in 1997. Up to now, no environment education activities have been financed and no requests have been received. Nevertheless, if such requests were presented to the Commission, they would be properly examined within the present orientation and guidelines of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/97 by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Unequal rights of grower/distillers in the European Union

Grower/distillers, farmers who have the right to distill alcohol from some of the fruit they grow, or to have it distilled on their behalf, are particularly heavily taxed by the French tax system.

Distortions of competition arise at Union level, however, as the right to distill alcohol differs widely from one Member State to another.There are significant differences, for example, between the liberal Spanish system and the more rigid French system.

That being so, what action does the Commission intend to take to reduce these differences between national rules, which are detrimental to the interests of grower/distillers?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1997)

Under the derogation set out in Article 22 of Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. )), Member States may apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries. The derogation may be applied only within certain production limits and subject to certain conditions. Provided that Member States special systems remain within the parameters thus laid down by Community law, the precise manner in which they apply the derogation is not further regulated.

Many Member States choose not to use the derogation, and the Commission is unaware of serious problems arising in Member States which do take up the option. It does not therefore intend proposing any amendment to Article 22. The Honourable Member is, however, invited to provide additional information on the problem encountered by French small distillers, so that the position may be studied.

As regards distilling rights themselves and different systems in Member States, it should be noted that in the absence of a common market organization in alcohol each Member State is entitled to lay down provisions on the production and marketing of ethyl alcohol which must be compatible with the basic provisions of the EC Treaty.