ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0704/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: High-Level Group on the withholding tax

1. Who has been appointed to serve in the High-Level Group charged with breaking the deadlock on the withholding tax and led by Manuel Baganha? In particular, who has been nominated to serve on the group by the British Government?

2. What is the formal remit of this working group and what languages will be used during meetings?

3. What meetings of the group have taken place, and when and where were they held? Please state in relation to each meeting (a) who attended the meetings and what was discussed, and (b) what was on the agenda and what were the formal conclusions.

4. When will the group next meet and what other future meetings have been scheduled? What will be on the agenda at these future meetings?

5. What consultations will the group undertake and with whom? How will the group determine which interest groups to consult on this very important matter? Will any representatives of the City of London financial services industry be consulted? If so, which representatives? What role will the Commission play in relation to the group?

6. When is the group expected to finalise its conclusions and/or to report back to the Council of Ministers?

Reply

(18 May 2000)

1. The Council of 31 January 2000 decided to set up a High-Level Working Group on taxation in order to answer to the political will expressed in the conclusions of the European Council held in Helsinki, 10-11 December 1999, with regard to the tax package (see paragraphs 34-38 of the Presidency conclusions). The Council also agreed that the political importance accorded to the Group should be reflected in the appointment by each Member of the Council and the Commission of a high-level representative.

2. The Group has been set up within the framework of the Council. Its work is therefore subject to the Council's Rules of Procedure. The Council will inform the European Parliament in the usual way on the outcome of discussions.

3. The Group has held meetings on 25 February 2000 and 3 April 2000. It considered specifically how the principle of an exchange of information could be implemented most effectively in the framework of the compromise put forward by the Presidency and the Commission on 7 December 1999.

4. The Group is expected to finalise its work in time so that the Council can report to the European Council in June 2000 at the latest.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries

On their accession to the European Union the current applicant countries will have a law on property which corresponds to the acquis communautaire. Accordingly, any discriminatory provisions in particular in respect of restitution and privatisation must be regarded as an infringement of Community law.

Hitherto the Commission has not expressed an opinion on the question of the lawfulness of legislation on privatisation, compensation and restitution in countries seeking membership of the European Union. Does the Commission share the views that if it were to publish a white paper on these issues, which affect almost all the candidate countries, this could make for greater legal certainty?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The EC Treaty states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 ex Article 222). The Commission thus has no competence for intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

For this reason, the Commission does not foresee publishing a white book on this matter.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not for the Commission to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: Pay of officials of the European Investment Bank (EIB)

The budget of the European Investment Bank (EIB) earmarks around ECU 129 million (ITL 250 billion) for the salaries of just under 1 000 (998, to be exact) employees. This figure includes not only various senior executives who apparently cost the institution around ECU 260 000 (ITL 500 million) per year, but also the administrative rank and file.

Could the Council provide the following information:

1. the composition of the EIB's management bodies,

2. remuneration and tax treatment (gross and net pay, including additional benefits),

3. the average total emoluments of senior executives (EIB staff),

4. whether it is true that, on the basis of the amount allocated across the board for the remuneration of its c. 1 000 employees, the average cost to the EIB of salaries and other charges comes to ITL 250 million (c. 130 million) per year per employee, or more than double the European average for bank employees of roughly ITL 100 million per year (less than 52 000 per annum),

5. whether it is true that members of the EIB's Management Committee receive a total of ITL 50 million net per month,

6. whether it is true that directors-general receive ITL 40 million per month,

7. whether it is true that salaries are published only up to the level of head of division,

8. whether it is true that certain administrative staff are, for various reasons, in receipt of income of around 500 000 per annum (around ITL 1 billion) from the bank,

9. whether it would consider providing for a reduction of 30 % in the emoluments in question from 1 January 2000,

10. exactly how much all the administrative staff and other employees of the EIB have been paid in the course of 1998?

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the European Investment Bank, which is provided for in Article 266 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the members of which are the Member States, has legal personality.

The Bank is governed by a Statute, which is the subject of a Protocol annexed to the Treaty. Article 8 of that Protocol provides that the Bank is directed and managed by a Board of Governors, a Board of Directors and a Management Committee. The composition of those bodies is laid down in Articles 9, 11 and 13 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Bank.

The Statute also provides that the officials and other employees of the Bank are under the authority of the President of the Management Committee and are engaged and discharged by him.

The Council therefore invites the Honourable Member to approach the European Investment Bank for the specific information he requests.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (I)

This specious argument is clearly not in accordance with the facts, as Dr Günther Winkler, a respected legal academic, has recently shown in his opinion Anatomy of an arbitrary European act. The reasons for his opinion are as follows:

The Presidency statement, sent as a diplomatic note to the highest bodies of state of Austria and to the Portuguese foreign minister, bears the hallmarks both under national and European law of an official act of the EU. Although it is written on the headed paper of the President of Portugal, the issuing body is stated to be the Presidency of the European Union. In other words, it is issued not by a national but by a European Community body.

In addition, Dr Winkler points in his opinion to a whole series of shortcomings in the Council's sanctions policy.

Will the Council continue to seek for arguments to pursue its policy, which is devoid of any legal basis, or will it not rather consider it helpful to work towards the normalisation of relations with Austria?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not adopted a position on this matter and consequently is unable to reply to the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/00

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Recovery of sums paid under Article 29a of Law 427/93 on non-recycled polyethylene

Italy introduced a 10 % charge on non-recycled polyethylene by means of decree-law No 331 of 1993, later incorporated in law No 427/93.

The Commission subsequently launched an infringement procedure (94/4232) on two counts: distortion of the common market by establishing a different tax base for national as opposed to Community purposes, and the question of State aid in the event of the proceeds of the charge being reutilised.

Meanwhile, the Italian Government's adoption of legislative decree no. 22/1997 on waste abolished the charge, but did not solve the problem of what to do with the sums that had already been paid but had not been used because of the Commission's intervention.

In view of the fact that any legislation that infringes Community law must be repealed with retrospective effect:

1. Could the Commission state whether it can take measures directly, and if so which, and whether it intends to urge Italy to take measures, and if so which, with a view to recovering the sums paid?

2. Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to provide compensation, if only indirectly, for farmers, the only sector really affected by the charge on polyethylene?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1816/00 and P-1989/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission confirms that the infringement proceedings initiated against Italy under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty for having introduced a special 10 % levy on the price of unadulterated polyethylene have been shelved following the repeal of the law concerned.

The Court of Justice has consistently ruled that charges levied in breach of Community law must be refunded. However, the repayment of sums wrongly collected is governed by the procedures and arrangements of national law, which may not be stricter than those applied in cases not involving Community law or make repayment excessively difficult or indeed impossible.

Similarly, in accordance with the well-established case-law of the Court of Justice, Community law demands that the Member State responsible for imposing charges incompatible with that law compensate those concerned for the injury caused by its action. Action for damages is likewise subject to the rules of substance and procedure of national law.

The Commission will be contacting the Italian authorities to take stock of the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Degree of harmfulness of vegetable fats

As a result of the recent adoption of the directive on cocoa, certain vegetable fats may now be used in the production of chocolate, in place of the 5 % cocoa butter that has hitherto been used. As regards Italy, Parliament's vote has legalised what was previously under a 1976 law considered fraud.

This begs the following question: is the above Italian law based on scientifically unsound data, or does the text adopted in Strasbourg perhaps offer sounder scientific assurances, in health protection terms, concerning the use of the following vegetable fats: shea butter, ilipé butter, kokum butter, shorea butter, palm oil (or butter) and mango oil (or butter)?

In Europe, these products are used to produce margarine, soap, animal feed and candles and as excipients in ointments and creams. They clearly have many uses, albeit not including food production.

In order, therefore, to prevent undue speculation and to reassure consumers, can the Commission confirm the following:

1. whether it is certain that these products do not damage human health?

2. whether it has received assurances from its scientific bodies that these fats are not harmful?

3. failing this, whether it would be prepared to commission a specific scientific study into the safety of these tropical products for food production purposes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Article 14 of Council Directive 73/241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption(1) states that the Directive shall not affect the provisions of national laws at present authorising or prohibiting the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa-butter.

On this basis seven Member States have authorised the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa-butter while eight Member States have prohibited it.

The new Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2000 offers all Community manufacturers the option of adding 5 % vegetable fats other than cocoa-butter, but it limits this option to the following fats: illipe butter, palm oil, sal butter, Shea butter, kakum grugi and mango nut. These vegetable fats are also commonly used in the manufacture of many other food products.

It must be stressed that the traders themselves are primarily responsible for food safety. They must ensure that the product they place on the market poses no risk to consumer health. The competent authorities for their part are responsible for vetting how the manufacturers comply with their responsibilities, through the operation of national monitoring and inspection systems.

Up to now the Commission has not been informed of any such health concerns; if the Commission were to be informed of evidence of a risk to human health from vegetal fat used in food products (which would probably not be limited to chocolate products) it could consult the Scientific Committee.

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1453/00

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Tax on vessels entering Greek waters

At the beginning of this year Greece introduced a special tax on vessels entering Greek territorial waters (Greek State Law No 2743/1999 of 14 January 2000). This tax must be paid by all vessels more than 7 metres in length, regardless of the flag they fly. It is levied at a rate of GRD 2000 per metre of vessel length and is valid for a stay of up to 30 days. Vessels which have a permanent mooring in a Greek harbour are exempt from the tax, although this status is forfeited if the vessel remains outside Greek waters for more than 30 days a year.

Does the Greek tax breach the principle of freedom of movement, since the owner of a vessel with a permanent mooring in Greece may now only sail outside the country for a maximum of 30 days if he or she wishes to avoid the tax?

Is it the case that special rules will remain in force until 2001 authorising Greece to levy such a tax on vessels entering its waters?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1062/00 by Mr von Wogau(1).

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 150.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1955/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Compensation for mussel farmers in Northern Greece

Shell-fish producers in the Thessalonki and Piria regions have incurred heavy losses of income owing to problems in these sea areas. Furthermore, unless the dead shell-fish (mussels) are gathered up by the fish farms, serious environmental problems will arise due to the decomposition of the mussels on the sea-bed.

1. Has Greece submitted an application for the compensation of mussel farmers who have suffered losses?

2. Given the danger of environmental damage to the sea areas of Thessaloniki and Piria area, is there any prospect of funding for the work needed to clear the sea of the dead shell-fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

1. Greece has notified the Commission of a projected state aid scheme aimed at enabling the Greek Government to grant assistance to mussel farmers and mussel fishermen in the Gulf of Thermaikos on account of the contamination of mussel production.

This notification was registered on 26 May 2000 and is currently being examined by the Commission.

2. On the basis of a decision to be taken at national level, measures aimed at restructuring and improving the contaminated areas could benefit from assistance under Council Regulation(EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1) within the context of the structural operational programme for fisheries.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Rules governing tyres under whole vehicle type approval

Numerous questions have been raised in Sweden concerning tyres in connection with whole vehicle type approval, such as whether remoulded tyres are a repaired original part and therefore authorised under whole vehicle type approval. A more important question, however, is whether the narrow winter tyres granted an exemption for use in Sweden are authorised under whole vehicle type approval. The Swedish National Road Administration considers them to be safer and more effective in the Swedish climate but is this view consistent with whole vehicle type approval? What happens if Swedes take their cars with narrow winter tyres to Germany? Are they then breaking the law?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

A remoulded tyre is a tyre which has been reconditioned by repairing a worn tyre, replacing the used tread with new material.

In the Community, rules in this area are, for the present, based solely on national provisions. However, it is planned in the short term that Regulations 108 and 109 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which lay down the rules for approval of this type of tyre, will be made compulsory.

It will therefore be possible in Europe to obtain type-approval for remoulded tyres, the use of which will also be specified in order to make the distinction, according to vehicle type, between first and second fitting. It is the first fitting that is affected by vehicle type-approval.

Winter tyres, more commonly referred to as snow tyres, are tyres whose tread and structure are primarily designed to ensure better performance than an ordinary tyre (for road use) in mud and in fresh or melting snow. They are type-approved in Europe in accordance with Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting(1) or Regulations 30 and 54 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and they must bear the letters M + S or M. S. or M and S.

At present there are rules governing the use of winter tyres, generally for a period determined by each Member State. Member States may grant certain derogations, as is the case in Sweden.

When a resident of a Member State goes to another Member State, either passing through or on holiday, the Vienna Convention allows initial derogations to be retained in line with the free movement of vehicles. However, for longer periods of time it is necessary to comply with the national provisions in force.

(1) OJ L 129, 14.5.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3056/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Ending of support for indigenous breeds in Portugal

Support for indigenous breeds has played a key role in preserving endangered species, thereby helping to improve the quality of meat production and enhance its image in the eyes of consumers. The aid has done a great deal to revitalise the agricultural sector in certain less favoured regions in Portugal's rural heartland.

In accordance with the last Community support framework (CSF), the aid in question was financed under the Portuguese rural development plan. The plan for the period from 2000 to 2006, to be implemented under the new CSF, also provided for aid. However, it has emerged that the Commission is preparing to alter the rules governing the award of aid, reducing breed-related support in cases where the number of females is below 1 000. What this basically means is that no more aid will be granted in respect of over twenty indigenous breeds and 140 000 head of livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats). The resulting cut will thus amount to some ESC 2 billion.

Is it true that the aid rules are to be altered as described above? If so, why has the Commission thought fit to make this proposal? Does it not consider such a measure to be contrary to the principle of multi-purpose farming and protection of high-quality production?

Is the Commission aware of the serious socio-economic consequences that the measure will entail for hundreds of Portuguese producers and many rural regions in the Portuguese heartland?

Does the Commission not consider it preferable to pursue a policy to promote quality and regional production that would grant a higher proportion of aid to small and medium-sized farmers instead of reducing that aid to further the interests of intensive mass production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1949/00

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Biomedical ethics and bioethics

One of the aims of the European Parliament and Council Decision No 182/1999/EC(1) of 22 December 1998 concerning the fifth framework programme for research is the study of problems relating to biomedical ethics and bioethics in the context of respect for fundamental human values.

I have the impression, however, that this area has gradually been downgraded in terms of priority. While the fourth framework programme for research had an allocation of 30 million, the fifth framework programme has only 10 million. Of this sum only 2,5 million had been distributed at the time of the last disbursement, which means that only very few projects can benefit.

Firstly, how and to what extent was the GAEIB's opinion No 10 taken as the basis for the current priorities in this area and, secondly, how does the Commission envisage biomedical ethics and bioethics being retained as a research sector?

(1) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member correctly points out that under the fifth framework programme for research the level of financial support so far attributed to the study of problems relating to biomedical ethics and bioethics in the context of fundamental human values has been at a lower level than in the previous framework programme.

This is mainly due to the limited funding available for the whole area of generic activities in the programme Quality of life and management of living resources (QoL) of which research on biomedical ethics and bioethics is just one part.

As outlined in the Commission's communication of January 2000 on the European research area(1), the Commission attaches great importance to the development of a shared vision on ethical issues in Europe, especially in the context of life sciences. Research on bio-ethics will play an indispensable role in this context.

Opinion No 10 of the Group of advisors for the ethical implications of biotechnology had indeed drawn the attention of the Commission to the necessity of research.

The Commission is examining means of redistributing priorities within the generic activities of the QoL programme, perhaps by means of additional calls for proposals for research on biomedical ethics and bioethics, in line with the realization of the concept of a European research area.

(1) COM(2000) 6 final.