ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/98

by Riccardo Garosci (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Protection of consumers from phthalates in soft toys made of PVC

Babies and small children are constantly at risk of swallowing harmful substances called phthalates, which are added to plastic toys to make them soft and flexible, since children often put these toys in their mouths and suck or chew them. Since at present parents cannot ascertain whether or not toys contain phthalates, they cannot protect their children from a potential danger. Article 153 of the Treaty establishing the European Community obliges the European institutions to give priority to the interests of consumers, in particular the most vulnerable ones, such as children. On 24 April last the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment expressed concern about two phthalates in particular, DINP and DEHP, for which the safety margin is very narrow. The recommendation adopted by the Commission on 1 July last is inadequate. Can the Commission therefore draw up as soon as possible a proposal for a directive and, if necessary, adopt emergency measures?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

As regards the Commission's general approach concerning problems associated with the presence of phthalates in certain childcare articles and toys of soft PVC (polyvinyl chloride), the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to the following written questions: E-755/98 from Mrs Díez de Rivera Icaza, E-830/98 from Mrs González Álvarez and Mr Marset Campos, E-996/98 from Mrs Sornosa Martínez, E -1536/98 from Mr Kaklamanis, E-1806/98 from Mr Alavanos and E-2055/98 from Mr Camisón Asensio(1).

Apart from the recommendation which it adopted on 1 July 1998(2), the Commission intends presenting as soon as possible a proposal for a directive concerning the products in question. The preparatory work for this is already under way.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999.

(2) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Apparent illegality of the ban imposed by Campania on private consortia receiving Community funding

Measure 2.2 of the Campania regional operational programme provides for European Regional Development Fund assistance to public investment in industrial zones. Written Question E-1009/98(1) dealing with this issue was answered by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission.

1. Is it true that measure 2.2 of the POP approved by the regional council and the Commission enabled both public and private consortia to receive 100 % funding and, if so, is it true to say that Campania can propose an amendment allowing private consortia access to the measure?

2. Has Campania ever asked the Commission in writing for authorization to make such a change?

3. Is the ban autonomously imposed by Campania on having recourse to funds provided for under national law to cover 50 % of the co-funding nonetheless legal?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 1998)

Measure 2.2 (industrial areas) of the Campania Region Operational Programme for 1994-1999 stipulates that the beneficiaries of assistance must be public bodies and consortia. The measure's financing plan proposed by the Region and approved by the Commission provides for 100 % public funding, implying that only public bodies and consortia may receive assistance. If a share of public funding is to be allocated to private consortia, the Region must modify its financing plan in advance to include private financing.

The Region proposed a change to the financing plan to the programme's Monitoring Committee at its meeting on 11 December 1997 to allow a private contribution of 50 % of the total in 1996. This change has not yet been notified to the Commission.

The Campania Region is required to abide by and enforce the financing plan approved by the Commission for the programme. For this reason, even if the financing plan is modified, the Commission cannot accept that the share of private financing be covered by other public resources.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996)

With regard to the Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996) (COM(97) 302 final), can the Commission ensure:

1. greater diversification and better balance in the allocation of appropriations to the various types of transport infrastructure so as to favour rail and maritime transport, which make a greater contribution to the protection of the environment;

2. that greater attention is paid, in the environmental field, to the protection and conservation of natural resources and countryside of great ecological value and to the quality of life of citizens/town dwellers;

3. greater support for the creation of environmental and transport infrastructures in the outermost regions?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

1. The Commission agrees that the balance of funding should be shifted away from road projects and can assure Parliament that the share of rail projects will increase in the future. The 1997 annual report will confirm this trend. However, it is important to note that road remains the best way to ensure accessibility to the outermost continental regions.

2. In the Commission's experience, greater involvement for the Cohesion fund in the area of protection and conservation of natural resources and the countryside would imply the need to manage a large number of projects costing less than 10 MECU. However, the rules provide that projects in this category can only be approved if duly justified. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that it should continue to give priority to the most urgent environmental deficiencies in the beneficiary Member States, in particular to those affecting human health. There has been so far no shortage of large environmental projects. In any case, the Commission does not have the staff resources to deal with a large number of small projects.

It remains possible, however, to make exceptions to this general rule if a Member State submits suitable nature conservation projects.

It may also be noted that projects for the protection and conservation of natural resources and the countryside can be financed within the framework of European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) measures, including Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92(1) on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside.

3. The Cohesion fund can co-finance such investments provided that appropriate fundable projects, justified on economic or environmental grounds, are presented.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/98

by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Actions to be brought against France for violations of the rules establishing the single market

In view of the large number of actions currently being brought against France for failure to comply with European legislation relating to the establishment of the single market, would the Commission list the proceedings it intends to initiate against France for failure to comply with the Community rules relating to the completion of the single market?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2150/98

by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Child labour and protection of young people

In connection with the Global March to the meeting in the European Parliament on 20 May 1998, can the Commission indicate how observance of Council Directive 94/33/EC(1) of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work is monitored in the European Member States?

To what extent are the necessary measures taken in the Member States to prohibit child labour and to guarantee compliance with the necessary protection measures for young people?

Which countries have already produced reports documenting compliance?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1998)

Member States must communicate to the Commission the texts of their national provisions implementing Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work(2). On the basis of these communications, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, has to examine the national legislation and assess its conformity with Community law.

Since communications from several Member States were late in arriving or incomplete, the Commission has not yet been able to prepare the report on the transposition of Directive 94/33/EC. Several infringement proceedings for "non-communication" have been brought against the Member States concerned. If, after having received all the necessary particulars, the Commission considers that a Member State has not correctly transposed the Directive, it may commence the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Generally the Member States have already outlawed child labour, and hence they are obliged to police compliance with this ban and to impose effective sanctions in the event of infringements.

Pursuant to Article 17 (4), Member States must report to the Commission every five years on the practical implementation of the provisions of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.

(2) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/98

by Andrea Manzella (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Subject: Assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi

With reference to the assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi, would the Commission state what urgent measures it considers the European Union should take to urge the Government of Guatemala to conduct an efficient and searching investigation to identify both those who carried out the crime and those who commissioned it for political reasons, as the bishop's murder confronts Guatemala with the terrible prospect of a return to civil war?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

The Commission welcomes the Guatemalan Government's statement that it will do all within its power to identify and bring to justice those responsible for the assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi. It will also monitor closely the work of the high-level committee set up to keep under constant review the ongoing proceedings of the judicial enquiry.

The Commission is well aware that the deficient structure and functioning of the legal system, particularly where the security forces and administration of justice are concerned, may seriously jeopardise a satisfactory conclusion of the enquiry.

The Honourable Member may rest assured that, while respecting the sovereignty of Guatemala and the spirit of the peace agreements, the Commission will do all it can to see these deficiencies overcome and ensure that effective instruments are available to the Guatemalan authorities with a view to enforcing the Government's expressed intention to pinpoint those responsible for the commission and the commitment of the crime and to create the right conditions so that community life can carry on peacefully.

It is with this objective that the Commission recently signed an important financing agreement involving support for the constitution of a new national civil police force. This operation, which is an integral part of the peace programme and will be the largest cooperation project ever financed by the Community in Latin America (almost ECU 32 million), will be followed this year by a substantial contribution towards reforming and consolidating the legal system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1976/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Reduced rats of VAT under the Sixth VAT Directive

Under the Sixth VAT Directive, the Member States may, exceptionally, apply reduced rates of VAT of not less than 5 % to certain goods and services which should be specified in an Annex to the Directive.

The General Synod in the UK is currently seeking to have a reduced rate of 5 % applied to church maintenance and repair work, particularly for church schools and historic buildings.

The British Government has quoted the fact that such services do not appear in the list annexed to the Directive as the principal reason why the chances of such a reduced rate being introduced are remote.

Given that the case for applying a reduced rate of VAT in these circumstances is a strong one, not least in terms of the benefits it would bring for the preservation of cultural heritage.

1. Does the Commission consider that a reduced rate of VAT for repair work carried out on church buildings could, in principle, be added to the relevant Annex to the Sixth VAT Directive?

2. Does the Commission envisage doing so in the coming months?

3. Does the Commission have any other comments to make on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

The situation under current Community VAT legislation is that category 9 of Annex H of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1) covers the "supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as part of social policy". Member States may therefore allocate a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to these services. Church building work is not listed for the application of a reduced VAT rate but the United Kingdom is entitled to keep, for a transitional period, the existing zero-rate on some work in this area.

It would be premature at this stage to comment on the future treatment for VAT of maintenance and repair of churches. A Commission proposal on the harmonisation of VAT rates will, however, be tabled by the end of 1998 at the earliest and it will inter alia tackle this question.

The Commission has also released a communication(2) relating to the experimental and optional application of reduced VAT rates to selected labour-intensive services. It is generally believed that this experiment should only encompass a strictly limited number of services which are best suited to meet the criteria set out in the communication. Maintenance and repair of churches and historic buildings are, at least partly, taken into account in the Commission communication. This communication is still under discussion in Council and discussion so far has been inconclusive.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) SEC(97) 2089 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2135/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Searches of the premises of Austrian banks

According to the Commission's press release IP98/556 of 23 June 1998, the premises of four Austrian banks have been searched without warning.

1. What press reports were primarily responsible for the decision to open an investigation, what specific information did they contain, and how did the Directorate-General learn of them?

2. More than a year passed between the launching of the investigation and the searches on 23 June 1998. What were the main reasons for not carrying out the searches before this date?

3. What information does the Commission have about the members, meeting places and agendas of the Lombard Club?

4. How does the Commission account for the fact that a complaint from an Austrian party is not sufficient to secure the opening of an investigation, and yet the Commission is willing to act in response to press reports?

5. How will the investigation proceed now, and how long will it take to complete?

6. Did the banks concerned provide full information in response to a simple request from the Commission, or, as the Commission had their premises searched, should one assume that the information they provided was incomplete?

7. If so, which banks provided full information? If not, which banks did not and what reasons did they give?

8. Who has been invited to use the Lombard hotline, and what has been done to ensure that the invitation only reached those for whom it was intended?

9. How many calls have been received on the hotline, and how useful was the information received over it?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

With regard to item 8 of the Honourable Member's request, the Commission would like to confirm that the "Lombard Hotline" has been established for the submission of information by third parties. The telephone number mentioned in the press release has subsequently been reported in the Austrian media.

With regard to the remaining items of the request, the Honourable Member will appreciate that as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position to comment on pending proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1952/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Tropical forest budget line

Since the tropical forest budget Regulation is due to come to an end in the next year or so, will the Commission produce a comprehensive review of all the projects undertaken under this Regulation so as to inform the debate about the future of this action?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 1998)

In 1997 the Commission published a mid-term report on cooperation activities financed under budget line B7-6201 covering the period 1992-1995(1). An updated report to include 1996 should be published later this year. Both reports include a comprehensive list of all projects financed under the tropical forest budget line, as well as descriptions of some of the highlights of the programme. In addition, the Commission is currently preparing the annual report foreseen in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 3062/95 of 20 December 1995 on operations to promote tropical forests(2), with an assessment of the implementation of this Regulation in 1997. This report will be submitted to the Parliament and the Council together with similar reports concerning a number of other budget lines.

Since 1996 the Commission has been preparing and financing an evaluation of all tropical forestry actions financed from 1992-1996, in compliance with the tropical forest regulation, and including Asian and Latin America countries (ALA), European development funds (EDF) and non-governmental organisations (NGO) budget lines. This process, which consisted of a desk study, field evaluations, and final synthesis, will be completed shortly.

At the same time the Commission is preparing a communication on tropical forest development cooperation to set out an operational strategy for the Community to help solve tropical forestry problems in the future through its various development programmes.

(1) ISBN 92 28 0004 0.

(2) OJ No 327, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion

In her appearance before Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, mentioned that budget resources under Article 10 of the ERDF had been made available to a certain number of regions with a view to the drawing up of a strategy and an action programme for transition to the information society.

Could the Commission provide information regarding all the projects relating to the information society which have so far been co-financed by the Commission under Article 10 of the ERDF and also those which will be co-financed between now and the end of the current planning period, specifying the regions concerned, the total cost of implementation and the extent of Community co-financing?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: EC milk subsidy for schools

With regard to its answer to E-1368/98(1), can the Commission confirm that, in the refusal to bring the EC semi-skimmed school milk subsidy into line with the whole milk subsidy by the slight amendment to the legislation (Regulation (EC) 3392/93(2) Article 4.1b), full consideration was given to child health and consumer choice issues and that this refusal was not based merely on agricultural budgetary expediency, which would not, according to EU principles, be an acceptable reason for refusal?

Will the Commission provide a summary of the documentation regarding child health and consumer consultation, the evidence on which the decision not to amend was based and state on what grounds this argument was rejected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

An amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) 3392/93, to bring the semi-skimmed milk subsidy in line with that of whole milk would require a prior amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) 1842/83(3) that lays down criteria for the fixing of the aid levels for different dairy products.

Under the existing rule, the amounts of aid are fixed taking into account the milk content of the products concerned. Therefore, this is a strictly technical matter in which no budget considerations are involved. The consequence of applying the existing rule is that the selling price to the pupils of whole milk and semi-skimmed milk should be reduced down to the same level and, consequently, not influence their choice for the one or the other. On these grounds, the Commission believes that the existing rule is neutral vis-à-vis consumer choice and health considerations.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998.

(2) OJ L 306, 11.12.1993, p. 27.

(3) OJ L 183, 7.7.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/98

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Community aid for the German Land of Saxony-Anhalt during 1997

What amounts of Community aid for the German Land of Saxony-Anhalt were approved and cancelled for which measures and under which programmes for 1997:

1. the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)?

2. the European Social Fund (ESF)?

3. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)?

4. Community research programmes?

5. Community energy programmes?

6. Community environmental programmes?

7. Community initiatives?

8. other Community programmes?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Further to its answer of 11 September 1998(1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Admission of holders of the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification to A/LA posts

The documentation attached to the action for annulment brought before the Court of First instance by Mr Vicente Alonso Morales on 1 December 1997 (T-299/97), brought to the attention of the Commission the fact that Mr Roberto Arce Recio, who holds the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification, had been admitted to study for a doctorate at Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse (France) and awarded a doctorate with distinction on 24 June 1998. Why, then, did Commissioner Liikanen state in his answer of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/97(1) by Mrs Bárbara Dührkop that the reasons for which the Commission does not admit holders of the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification to category A/LA posts in the European civil service include the fact that holders of the said qualification are not eligible to study for a doctorate?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2786/98 by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi(2).

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15.

(2) See page 150.