ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2733/99

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Italian law which discriminates against disabled persons over the age of 65

Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states that the Union is to combat all discrimination based on age.

Is the Council aware of the fact that Italian law (Article 19 of Law No 118 of 30 March 1971 and subsequent amendments) provides for the granting of a life-long financial benefit for citizens who are

completely disabled and who apply for the benefit before the age of 65 but that the benefit is not payable to those who, despite meeting all the other conditions for eligibility, apply for the benefit after the age of 65? Is it aware of the fact that Italian old people, despite meeting all the disability conditions required by law, are discriminated against on the basis of their age when they apply for the benefit, a fact which has a life-long impact on whether or not they receive the benefit?

Does the Council intend to ask Italy to repeal this law, as a matter of urgency?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

Article 13 of the EC Treaty empowers the Council to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

The Commission has recently submitted to the Council a proposal for a Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. That proposal contains some provisions concerning age-based discrimination. The question as to whether benefits of the kind referred to by the Honourable Member are covered by the proposal for a Directive has not yet been resolved; the proposal is currently under discussion in the Council's subordinate bodies and has therefore not yet been adopted. Being a framework directive, it would in any case leave Member States some latitude over its implementation.

In any event, as the Honourable Member will be aware, it is not for the Council to have any national law repealed. It is the Commission's role to watch over Member States' compliance with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2394/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: The Tenda pass tunnel

- The Tenda pass tunnel is the only Alpine pass linking south Piedmont and France,

- over the last ten years the tunnel has been blocked on several occasions by landslides or landslide risk, caused mainly by subsidence of the roof, which is now worn and under tension,

- this has resulted in very long delays and hold-ups for traffic,

- the structure dates back to 1876 and it would be difficult to convert back to a normal, usable state,

- it is situated at a considerable height, posing an extremely high risk for road traffic and for evacuation in the event of accidents,

- passing through the tunnel obliges motorists to use routes which are difficult, particularly for heavy vehicles, and which climb to a great height,

- the numerous suggestions for faster links in the region between France and Italy have been delayed or put on hold, at times for several months, without any appreciable progress.

In the light of the above, will the Council state its opinion and intentions with regard to the future of the Tenda tunnel and/or a road connection there (new tunnel, at what height, rebuilding of the existing tunnel) and, in more general terms, with regard to road connections on the route between France and Italy in south Piedmont?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Council has been discussing the problems posed by transport in the Alps in the light of the recent accidents in the Tauern and Mont Blanc tunnels. It has recommended operational preventive measures which could be planned at European level and offer greater safety to citizens travelling in Europe and has invited the Commission to submit proposals enabling it to draw up recommendations for improving tunnel safety and further developing uniform high safety standards applicable throughout Europe.

Regarding the specific question put by the Honourable Member, it is, however, not for the Council to comment on a situation which is the responsibility of national authorities. The Council is still awaiting Commission proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/99

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Support to American agriculture sector

In an article headlined America gives farming more support than EU published in the Agrarisch Dagblad (Agricultural Daily, Netherlands) for 14 October 1999, a Commission official is reported as stating that in the 1999-2000 farming year the United States will be paying out more in agricultural subsidies than the European Union. Price support in the United States is said to be running at some 20 billion dollars annually.

Can the Commission indicate what forms of support the United States grants its agricultural sector, and will it provide figures to support the statement attributed to the Commission official?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

The American budget for agriculture at 63 and 69 billion for the years 1999 and 2000 respectively is more than 50 % higher than that for the common agricultural policy (CAP). It should be pointed out, however, that much of the American agriculture budget expenditure is only of indirect benefit to producers. The food, nutrition and consumer services for example which accounted for 35 billion of the 1999 agriculture budget benefit American farmers indirectly in that they promote consumption of certain food products, which are virtually all sourced from American farms.

In calendar year 1999, direct federal government payments to American farmers amounted to 22,5 billion or the equivalent of 11 000 per farm, double the average payment to Community farmers.

The principal mechanism for supporting American farmers is through Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments which are direct payments to farmers and are fixed on the basis of historic production and loan deficiency payments which amount to the difference between market prices and a pre-determined amount per bushel, known as the loan rate.

In 1998 and 1999, the American government supplemented these payments already available to farmers by about 15 billion in total through two emergency packages, which was distributed on the basis of the data available through the AMTA system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/99

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Fisheries: Fleet size and MAGPs

Can the Commission provide a comparative analysis of the methods used to calculate fleet size and fulfilment of MAGPs in different Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets of all Member States fix capacity targets in tonnage and engine power measured in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 of 22 September 1986 defining the characteristics of fishing vessels(1).

Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 was modified by Council Regulation (EC) No 3259/94(2) and by Commission Decision No 95/84/EC(3), which require that the tonnage of fishing vessels be measured in units of gross tonnage (GT) as defined by the London Convention of 1969. All vessels of more than 24 metres length between perpendiculars should already be measured in units of GT. For vessels greater than or equal to 15 metres overall length but less than 24 metres length between perpendiculars, estimates of the GT must be progressively replaced by measures of GT before the end of 2003. For vessels less than 15 metres overall length, the GT is defined by a simplified formula based on the length, breadth and depth of the vessel.

Following a call for tenders the Sea fish industry authority in the United Kingdom has been contracted to evaluate the way in which these provisions are applied in each of the Member States. Its final report will be forwarded to the Commission in the first quarter of the year 2000.

The way in which engine power is measured is also currently under review. To this end the Commission is consulting with the European committee for standardisation to determine possible courses of action. This is now considered to be a priority for the Community and may result in a further modification to Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86.

(1) OJ L 274, 25.9.1986.

(2) OJ L 339, 29.12.1994.

(3) OJ L 67, 25.3.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/99

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: EU grant funding

What is the procedure for remunerating the intermediary bodies (private companies contracted to the European Commission) who administer European grant funds?

On average, what percentage of the funds does such remuneration represent?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Intermediary bodies which provide the Commission with technical or administrative assistance for the management of Community funds under a private-law contract can be paid in two ways: either by a lump sum covering all services, where no additional cost can be invoiced to the Commission (with the exception of costs relating to ad hoc audits required by the Commission), or on a time-rate basis, possibly containing flat-rate sums, in which case refundable costs may also be charged (travel, cost of equipment, overheads and audit costs).

Payment for services is calculated on the basis of the specifications annexed to the contract within the limits of the estimate. An original invoice must be produced for each payment. Costs are reimbursed on the basis of original supporting documents or certified true copies.

Where the specifications authorise the contractor to take on independent, external experts, the cost of the experts are charged on a flat-rate basis per actual day's work. The Contractor is required to ensure that the experts fulfil the same obligations as those applicable to his staff and he sends the Commission a copy of the agreements signed with his staff, while ensuring that the time declared as worked had actually being worked.

From an internal inspection carried out in 1997 on the basis of a sample of the technical assistance offices, it emerged that, on average, payment of these intermediary bodies accounted for almost 30 % of the funds which they helped manage and 3,8 % of the total budget for the programmes in question. However, these estimate need to be qualified in order to place the percentages in the proper context. Data relating to the payment of these intermediary bodies is based on commitment rather than on payment appropriations with the result that the real cost may have been overestimated. In addition, appropriations, committed in respect of contracts with these bodies often cover periods exceeding 12 months and are thus used to pay for services relating to the management of appropriations during the following years. Accordingly, the proportion of payments from appropriations for a given year can be overstated.

Some of the technical assistance offices covered by the inspection did not have as their main task the management of Community grants, but rather provided services in support of programme implementation, such as checking and monitoring the programme, organising conferences and seminars, disseminating information relating to the programme or gathering and processing data, with the result that the proportion of costs of payments from the funds managed by the intermediary bodies can seem relatively high.

No specific distinction is made for funds which finance Community grants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2472/99

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Common Air Traffic Control area throughout the EU

Is the Council aware that, because of its failure to agree a common Air Traffic Control area throughout the EU with a common EU-wide capacity plan, average flight-time delays are set to rise to 50 minutes?

Would not the Council agree that this situation is unacceptable and that it constitutes a failure by the Member States towards passengers and airlines which they should begin to remedy immediately?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's concern. In its Resolution of 19 July 1999(1) the Council noted that the situation in air traffic delays undermined the efficiency of Community air transport, caused great inconvenience to air travellers and could cause an additional burden on the environment. Having welcomed the action taken by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) to improve the efficiency of air traffic management in Europe, it invited the Member States to intensify their action at national level and the Commission to submit a communication aimed at reducing air traffic delays and congestion in Europe.

Further to that Resolution, the Commission submitted to the Council, at its meeting on 9 and 10 December 1999, a general communication on the subject aimed at the creation of a single European sky. The Council took particular note of the Commission's intention to set up a high-level group that would bring together the parties responsible for the management of air traffic in the Member States and cover the civil and military use of airspace, while taking due account of the interests of the end users of air transport.

The Council is awaiting the Commission's report on the group's findings so that it can discuss them at its meeting in June 2000.

(1) OJ C 222, 4.8.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/99

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Money laundering

In view of the fact that Italian and other European banks have set up offices in so-called offshore countries, that such countries do not cooperate with investigations into money laundering and that a number of EU countries, such as Luxembourg, maintain very strict banking secrecy laws,

can the Commission say:

- what means are available to it to combat money laundering;

- whether there are any plans, in the context of the next Intergovernmental Conference, to abolish banking secrecy in EU Member States where laws exist to protect it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The fight against money laundering has both first and third pillar aspects.

Under the first pillar all of the Member States have implemented Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(1). The Commission has presented two reports(2) to the Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Directive. The main requirement is that banks and other financial institutions must notify the appropriate authorities of any suspicion of money laundering. In such cases banking secrecy rules must be set aside.

In July 1999 the Commission tabled a proposal(3) to update and extend the 1991 Directive.

A number of anti-money laundering initiatives have also been taken or are in progress under the third pillar, in particular in the context of the implementation of the action plan to combat organised crime(4) endorsed at the Amsterdam European Council in 1997.

As regards the issue of offshore centres, recommendation No 30 of the action plan calls on Member States to examine how to take action and provide adequate defences against the use by organised crime of financial centres and offshore facilities. To take this work forward a study by the University of Trento is being cofinanced under the Falcone Programme. The final report should soon be available.

Reference should also be made to the important work currently being undertaken by the Financial action task force on money laundering (FATF)(5), on the basis of a mandate from the Group of seven most industrialised countries (G7), to identify those countries and territories (whether offshore or onshore and possibly including the FATF's own members) which provide insufficient co-operation in the global fight against money laundering. This work will involve a world-wide examination of all significant financial centres against a number of criteria (including that of excessive secrecy). The FATF is planning to issue a list of such countries and territories in June 2000.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.

(2) COM(95) 54 final and COM(98) 401 final.

(3) COM(1999) 352 final.

(4) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.

(5) The FATF is the foremost world body dedicated to the fight against criminal money. It was created by the G7 in 1989 and currently has 28 members, including the Commission and all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/99

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds in per capita terms

In its response to Question E-1558/99(1) the Commission stated that Luxembourg received 0,04 %, which is the smallest share of the 15 Member States.

If the Commission had taken the trouble to read the question, it would have seen that it was about relative prosperity per capita. Could the Commission now answer the question as to whether Luxembourg, the richest Member State in per capita terms, receives the largest per capita allocation from the Structural Funds? If so, how does the Commission justify the situation?

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

For the next programming period from 2000 to 2006, Luxembourg will receive, under the Structural Funds, annual per capita aid of 31,23 (1999 prices). If the Member States are arranged in descending order according to the level of aid per head of population Luxembourg is in twelfth place, which means that it does not have the highest per capita allocation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Competition law and the Spanish electricity sector

In October the Spanish Government announced that if approval were not granted for aid to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for the electricity companies, consumers' bills would rise. The body representing the electricity industry recently reiterated this point, in an attempt to reinforce the idea that these measures, currently under investigation by the European Commission as state aids, are positive.

Quite apart from the fact that it does not appear to make sense, this announcement demonstrates that although the liberalisation of the electricity sector has gone through, the companies enjoy a position of joint dominance which allows them to fix their prices with the government without reference to competitors, since none in fact exist.

Does the Commission agree that these assertions by the Spanish Government and the electricity companies prove that competition does not exist within the Spanish electricity industry?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Spanish government has notified the Commission of its plans to grant the companies in the electricity sector a financial compensation in order to help their adaptation to competition following the liberalisation of the sector under Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1).

At present, the Commission is closely examining this notification. The Commission has not yet finalised this examination, and can thus not communicate its results yet.

The Commission has not recently made any other investigation on competition in the electricity sector in Spain. Therefore, the Commission is currently not in a position to reply to the question of the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2477/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: LIFE project

The LIFE Natura programme has given funds to the project to clean up Lake Alserio in the province of Como.

Local environmental organisations maintain that:

1. the documents submitted to DG XI for the approval of the project do not reflect the true facts in the area concerned and that the accompanying maps are not in fact up to date;

2. environmentally valuable areas have in the meantime been excluded from the areas coming within the Regional Park of the Lambro Valley in which Lake Alserio is situated and subject to environmental restrictions;

3. the Trust administering the Regional Park of the Lambro Valley, which is one of the beneficiaries of the funds, ought to be replaced by government officials.

Does the Commission intend:

(a) to check that the documents submitted tally with the actual situation in the area in which the measures are to be carried out?

(b) to freeze the funds granted by LIFE Natura 1999 to the project to clean up Lake Alserio pending such a check?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The LIFE-Nature project Actions of environmental restoration of Alserio Lake financed in 1999 targets the conservation of the site of Community importance Lago di Alserio code IT2020005 (515 hectares of surface area) proposed under article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The Commission has verified that the boundaries of the project area do fall within those of the Lago di Alserio and thus comply with the criteria set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (Life)(2).

The Commission is aware that parts of the site of Community importance have not been included in the nature reserve, and would thus not be covered by the management plan of the reserve. Nevertheless, to guarantee a coherent approach the project includes the preparation of a management plan for the entire site of Community importance. This plan will be formally adopted by the authorities before the project ends.

The Commission has also no reason to doubt the other elements of information in the project proposal. The project was carefully evaluated and revised before the final decision. The Commission does not therefore consider it necessary to investigate the matter further or to freeze co-financing granted.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996.