ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1345/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Administrative appropriations of the European Institutions

Will the Commission state the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1995 under budget heading B7-620 (Technical cooperation with the Independent States of the former Soviet Union) to expenditure on:

- studies,

- experts' meetings,

- conferences and congresses and

- information and publications?

Can the Commission also say what proportion of the total amount of appropriations allocated to this budget heading is taken up by these four types of expenditure? Does it consider this proportion to be reasonable?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1344/96 and E-1345/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

None of the European institutions' running costs are charged either to heading B7-500 (B7-600 in 1995) - aid for economic restructuring in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CCEE) - or B7-520 (B7-620 in 1995) - cooperation with the independent states of the former Soviet Union - since no provision for such is made in the budget remarks.

Funding allocated to these heading goes towards technical assistance schemes to support the transition to market economies (management, energy, transport and financial services).

However, expenditure similar to that referred to by the Honourable Member was charged to this heading last year but as an integral part of operational projects and programmes approved by the Commission for Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States (NIS).

The preparations for, and implementation of, these technical assistance schemes included expert meetings, which were financed from the Phare and Tacis programmes. Conferences and seminars covered activities designed to spread the word about these programmes, especially among those business operators in the Community, the CCEE and the NIS likely to benefit from, or participate in, the two programmes. Similarly, feasibility studies were carried out to help achieve the specific goals of Phare and Tacis. Since such activities are basic components of integrated programmes covering a number of schemes and instruments, it is difficult to treat them in isolation.

The only spending for this type of activity which can easily be isolated is that earmarked for information and publication. Last year, a specific programme approved by the steering committees of both programmes was launched, accounting for 0.9% (Phare) and 1% (Tacis) of the funding for each heading.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Commission failure to implement the EEC Regulation prohibiting the use of leghold traps

The ban on the use of leghold traps in the Community laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 ((OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1. )) is not being observed by the Commission. The ban should have entered into force without fail on the appointed date, even if the implementing measures provided for in the Regulation had not been taken in time.

The fact that the Commission has neglected to fulfil its obligations constitutes a failure to act according to the definition used by the Court of Justice.

Such a failure cannot even be excused by a conflict between the obligations in question and GATT rules prohibiting measures such as those laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91, since the Commission would be obliged in any case to enforce Community law.

Can the Commission say why it has failed to implement the Regulation, thereby making itself liable to proceedings in the Court of Justice and hence involving other institutions in the dispute?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

At the end of last year the Commission considered that it was impracticable at that stage to implement the ban on the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods as laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91.

The Commission informed the Member States of this situation on 8 December 1995 and on 15 December 1995 adopted a proposal for amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. ((OJ C 58, 28.2.1996. )) A recommendation for a decision authorizing the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Community, a framework agreement on humane trapping standards with Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States is at present being examined by the Council.

The Commission will further clarify its position in the answer it will give to the letter of 21 May 1996 from Mr Hänsch, in accordance with Article 175(2) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1989/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: China - human rights

In view of the Commission's answer to my question E-1053/96 ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p.78. )) will the Commission in future be adopting a similar position with regard to all human rights abuse in China at future meetings of the EU-China Dialogue, and will it work on the spot with other NGOs, in order to stimulate the development of Chinese civil society?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1989/96 and E-1990/96 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0771/96 by Ole Krarup (EDN) to the Commission (1 April 1996)

Subject: The environmental impact assessment directive

The Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC) ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p.40. )) contains various requirements for the evaluation of and consultations on projects which might be harmful to the environment.

Does the Commission consider that these requirements are legally binding on the national authorities? There has been uncertainty in practice as to whether

- the directive is being complied with if developers produce provisional calculations of the environmental impact rather than awaiting final and reliable data (Article 5(2)),

- consultations may be regarded as adequate if the final data are not included in the consultation papers,

- development consent may be granted even though the approval of one or more authorities for all or part of the project is lacking,

- the assessment of environmental impact may be held over for decision until after development consent has been given, and then included in it as a condition.

Does the Commission consider that in such cases there have been breaches of the Directive and, if so, cannot legal action be instituted?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

Like all directives addressed to Member States, Directive 85/337/EEC is binding on Member States as to the result to be achieved, but leaves to national authorities the choice of form and methods.

Where an environmental impact assessment is required under Directive 85/337/EEC it must be carried out before development consent is granted for the project concerned. This includes supplying the information required under Article 5(2) of the Directive and carrying out the consultations required by Article 6(2). The information gathered pursuant to Article 5 and 6 must be taken into consideration during the development consent procedure. The Directive does not, however, provide that development consent can only be granted with the approval of all of the environmental authorities which have been consulted as part of the environmental assessment procedure.

The Commission considers alleged breaches of Directive 85/337/EEC which are brought to its attention and, where appropriate, institutes legal proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0953/96 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Combating economic crime

At its 35th sitting, on 22 September 1995, the Committee of the Union of Financial Officials in Europe noted that in the sphere of direct taxes 'the political will to combat economic crime and the shadow economy effectively is clearly lacking in all countries'.

What measures are planned in order to deal with this unacceptable state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1996)

The general upshot of economic crime and the underground economy is the evasion of direct taxes, and in particular income tax.

The Commission would note that, where direct taxes are concerned, evasion is a matter for the Member States so that it is the national tax administrations that essentially have the task of combating evasion.

However, it would point out that, in a document (('Taxation in the European Union' (SEC(96) 487 final). )) discussed by the Finance Ministers on 13 April in Verona, it drew the attention of the Member States to the need to combat the erosion of tax receipts caused by the growth of the parallel economy.

As regards the legislative measures necessary at Community level to crack down on international tax evasion, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Council, back in 1977, adopted a Directive concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation. ((OJ L 336, 27.12.1977. )) Under that Directive, Member States are in a position to obtain from the other Member States all the information relevant for the correct assessment of taxes on income and on capital.

The Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, is currently looking into the possibility of stepping up this exchange of information with a view to combating tax evasion more effectively.

Another area highly susceptible to tax evasion and in which Community measures are considered necessary by the Commission is the taxation of investment interest. This is because, with the full liberalization of capital movements within the Community, the risk of investment income not being declared has increased.

Accordingly, the Commission in 1989 put forward a proposal for a directive establishing a common system of withholding tax on interest payments. ((OJ C 141, 7.6.1989. )) However, despite numerous discussions, the most recent taking place during the German Presidency in 1994, the Council has not yet reached agreement in the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: European collective agreements

With respect, Commissioner Flynn's answer of 10 June 1996 to my Question No 1087/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 115. )) does not exhaust the subject.

Where has it been established that the term 'decision' in Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy is not used in the precise technical sense of Article 189 of the EC Treaty? On what grounds does the Commission base its certainty?

In that case, in what would the notional and practical autonomy of the second part of Article 4(2) consist in relation to the first part of that paragraph?

Why is the purpose of the 'decision' provided for in Article 4(2) of the Agreement not to be considered as giving European collective agreements general application, which would have the advantage of enshrining a traditional solution which is widely accepted in legislation on collective labour relations at international level, while at the same time respecting the technical notion of the term 'decision' as a Community act?

This matter is of theoretical but above all practical interest, since the solution proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council (directive) is likely to undermine the potential effectiveness of such agreements.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

As pointed out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Proposal for a Directive concerning the framework agreement on parental leave ((Doc. COM(96) 26. )), the Commission (as well as the Council) considers that the term 'decision' within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on Social Policy refers to one of the binding legal instruments of Article 189 of the EC Treaty. In support of this view we would recall that the term is rendered in the German version as 'Beschluss', whereas the word 'Entscheidung' would have been used if one wanted to refer to a decision in the strict sense.

Moreover the objective of the Community instrument is to implement the agreement between management and labour and the Directive is quite in a position to do so without restricting the social parners' independence, which is fully guaranteed in two respects:

* it is the signatory parties who decide whether or not to jointly request the Commission to adopt this implementing procedure;

* the text of the agreement is not modified by the Community instrument, which merely implements it and incorporates it in the system of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/96 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Import quotas and prices for fruit from Hungary and other Central and East European countries

On his recent visit to Hungary the EU Agriculture Commissioner Mr Fischler promised that Hungary's traditional trade relations with the European Union would be maintained for fruit exports.

1. What practical measures has the European Union adopted to be able to keep this promise for this year's harvest?

2. Why are reference prices being set not only for fresh fruit, as in the past, but recently also for fruit intended for processing?

3. What reference prices have been set for both types of fruit and what are the reasons for the price set in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The reference price system applicable to Community imports of certain kinds of fruit and vegetables was replaced, as a result of Uruguay Round negotiations, by the entry price system, whereby prices are arrived at using mathematical formulae on the basis of the reference prices applied to the products in question over the period 1986-88. The new entry price system, like the preceding one, applies to the fruit and vegetables concerned regardless of their intended use, be it consumption as fresh produce or processing.

In the case of two products, namely sour cherries and cucumbers intended for processing, in view of their market characteristics and the supply needs of the Community industry, the Commission last year deemed it necessary to set reduced entry prices valid erga omnes on a provisional basis. At the same time it sent a proposal to the Council aimed at making such reduced entry prices permanent. The Council adopted the proposals. ((Council Regulation (EC) No 1191/96 of 26.6.1996 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1192/96 of 25.6.1996, OJ L 156, 29.6.1996. ))

Future import arrangements concerning products from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are currently being negotiated. It is too early to predict the outcome of such negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/96 by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) and Josep Pons Grau (PSE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Incompatibility of the CAP with exports of products from developing countries

The Maastricht Treaty's chapter on development cooperation states that the Community's internal policies must be consistent with Community policy involving the developing countries.

The Treaty lays down that the Community shall foster the full integration of the developing countries into the world economy, with the implication that this will involve favouring exports of products in which they have a comparative advantage.

On numerous occasions Parliament has drawn attention to the incompatibility of the CAP with certain developing countries' opportunities to export products which compete with Community produce.

Could the Commission explain the negative impact which the new regulation on the cocoa content of chocolate will have on imports of this product from the developing countries, and the relative losses in rice exports which the Caribbean countries and overseas territories will suffer if the new decision to associate the French overseas territories, recently submitted to the Council by the Commission, is adopted?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1996)

The Commission assures the Honourable Members that it makes every effort to ensure that the provisions of the EC Treaty on the need for consistency of the Community's internal policies with development policy are duly respected.

With regard to the issue of cocoa, the Commission's recent proposal was inevitably a compromise that sought to balance all the interests involved, i.e. the need to eliminate barriers to the free movement of the product concerned, to protect consumers by requiring such products to be clearly and distinctly labelled, and to respect the interests of producer countries in line with the Community's obligations as a signatory to the international cocoa agreement. However, should the adoption of this proposal have a negative impact on the developing countries concerned, the Community would be obliged to compensate any loss of income through the use of Stabex funds.

As regards rice imports, the Commission proposal on the trade arrangements of the overseas countries and territories (OCT) will keep Caribbean rice exports to the Community at a high level, while averting the risk of the preferential terms of the OCT arrangements being misapplied, as appears to be currently the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1600/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Community legislation in respect of landfill sites for the disposal of household waste

In Portugal, various procedures are currently under way with a view to deciding on the location of, preparing public competitions for, and subsequently constructing landfill sites for the disposal of household and industrial waste.

These procedures have been hotly disputed by the people in the areas concerned, who are accusing the local authorities of taking decisions on the basis of technically ill-founded and/or incomplete studies without having carried out environmental impact studies and, in certain cases, without responding appropriately to the many calls for public information and transparency.

The people affected and the organizations which represent them have not even succeeded in obtaining comprehensive information or securing access to the national and Community laws which regulate the procedure for determining the location of such sites and then constructing them.

In these circumstances, would the Commission provide details of all current Community legislation (relating to all aspects, including the environment) which regulates decisions on the location of landfill sites for household waste?

Which of these Community laws have already been incorporated into Portuguese law, which have not and, of the latter, which should have already been incorporated?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)

Community legislation does not contain any special provisions on the location of landfill sites for household waste. Directive 75/442/EEC ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. )) (waste in general), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )) therefore applies, in particular Article 4 which stipulates that 'Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment'.

It should also be pointed out that installations for the disposal of domestic waste are covered by Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) (environmental impact assessment). Projects involving such installations must therefore, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive, be the subject of an environmental impact assessment 'where Member States consider that their characteristics so require', i.e. if, by virtue of their nature, size or location, projects are likely to have significant effects on the environment (Article 2).

Finally, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the national transposing measures are, for Directive 85/337/EEC, Decree-Law No 186/90 and Regulatory Decree No 38/90 and, for Directive 75/442/EEC, Decree-Law No 310/95 and Order No 15/96.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1722/96 by James Provan (PPE) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: Convergence between WTO and EU trade law

In the light of remarks made by Mr Timmermans, Deputy Director-General of the Commission's Legal Service at the Bruges WTO Conference in 1994 about the increasing convergence between WTO and EU trade law, does the Commission consider that the conservation of natural resources provision of Article XX of the General Agreement would be covered by the public policy provision of Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The remarks made at the Bruges conference on the World trade organisation were of a purely personal nature within the framework of a scholarly conference. The Commission feels no need to comment on such remarks.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/96 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Distortion of competition for local authority public companies in Italy

The European Union has frequently reaffirmed the principle that public companies should abide by the rules of free competition and has often ruled that legal provisions designed to give public companies an advantage over private business are contrary to Community law.

In Italy, local authority public companies (special agencies, associations) providing public transport services are subject to the Single Treasury provisions (Italian Law No 720 of 29 October 1984 and Ministerial Decree of 2 July 1990), under which they are required to pay all available liquid assets into branches of the State Provincial Treasury. In practice, this means that liquid reserves cannot be invested or held in interest-bearing bank accounts. The provision is designed to help reduce the State's cash requirements. It does not apply to all operators but only to local authority public companies, which means that private businesses are exempt.

Does the Commission not consider that these provisions of Italian law violate the principle of free competition by disadvantaging local authority public transport companies? Does it not consider that, given the way in which the legislation reduces the competitiveness of these companies, formal infringement proceedings should be opened?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)

The Commission considers that the question falls outside its jurisdiction, since local public transport does not normally involve competition at Community level or trade between Member States.