ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3997/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: The Charter of Fundamental Rights (legal status)

Does the Commission agree with Keith Vaz, the British Minister for Europe, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, if agreed to by representatives of the Member States at Nice but not incorporated into the treaties, would constitute merely a declaratory document with the same legal status as The Beano (a well-known children's comic), and, if not, does the Commission concur with the view that if the Charter were not to be incorporated into the European Treaties that the Court of Justice would be acting both unwisely and outside its powers if it were to attempt to alter the balance of rights and duties within the European Union or to restrict the freedom of individuals or companies or the prerogatives of sovereign nation states on the basis of reference to the Charter if the Court had not expressly been authorised to do so by international treaty?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union was proclaimed jointly by the President of the Council, the President of Parliament and the President of the Commission in Nice on 7 December 2000 on the occasion of the European Council meeting.

The Charter makes visible to citizens the fundamental rights they already enjoy but which in some cases are buried in a variety of source instruments not readily accessible to ordinary citizens. The Commission therefore thinks it highly likely that the Court of Justice will refer to the Charter when handing down judgments in the future.

The Commission set out its views on this point in the communication it adopted on 11 October 2000(1) which was sent to Parliament and in which it stated that the Charter is an instrument to verify respect for fundamental rights by the institutions and the Member States when they act under Union law.

(1) COM(2000) 559 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4046/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Variation in rates of duty on fuel

Does the Commission consider that the variation in rates of duty on fuel in the various Member States distorts intra-Community trade? If so, should low rates of tax be deemed to be unfair state aids?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, there are significant differences in rates of excise duty on fuel among the Member States.

As early as 1987, the Commission presented a number of proposals concerning indirect taxation in order to allow the abolition of tax frontiers as part of the completion of the single market. In the case of excise duties, the Commission was aiming at full harmonisation of duties on mineral oils by introducing a single excise duty for each product throughout the Community. The aim of this approach was to counter distortion of competition, as referred to in the Honourable Member's question. The proposal nevertheless met with firm opposition from some Member States.

In 1989, the Commission made a new proposal offering the Member States greater flexibility, with minimum rates, narrower rate bands and target rates per product. The Member States once more rejected the proposal.

Finally, in 1992, the Member States decided unanimously to create a Community system for taxing mineral oils, introducing a minimum rate of taxation for each mineral oil, according to its use (fuel, industrial and commercial use, heating). The minimum rates have not been reviewed since 1992.

Noting the risk of distortion of competition among the Member States but also among the various sources of energy, in 1997 the Commission proposed a draft directive on the taxation of energy products(1). The proposal is still with the Council. The unanimity rule which applies to taxation has made it impossible to adopt. The Commission nevertheless considers that its adoption is still a priority, for the proper functioning of the single market and also because of the contribution it could make to attaining environmental policy and transport objectives.

The setting of a lower level of excise duties on mineral oils by a Member State does not in itself lead to non-observance of Community rules on competition. State aid could be allowed if certain specific sectors benefited only within a Member State from provisions derogating from the general arrangements.

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3518/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Lloyds and the US financial markets

Is the current investigation of Lloyds impacting on the talks between the Commission and the US Administration on the opening of American financial markets to EU companies?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The trade talks between the Commission and the United States on opening the American insurance market to Community companies under the trans-Atlantic economic partnership are independent of any investigation of Lloyds carried out by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3958/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Restructuring of the European defence industry

On 27 July 2000, at an armaments exhibition in Great Britain, an agreement on the restructuring and operation of the European defence industry Framework Agreement Concerning Measures to Facilitate the Restructuring and Operation of the European Industry was concluded between six European Union Member States. That framework agreement will facilitate business for the international armaments industry since it will now be possible for the country which made the final addition to a weapons system to issue the export licence for the weaponry.

Does this comply with the EU's Code of Conduct on arms exports?

Does the signing of this agreement by Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy and Germany not run counter to the efforts being made to achieve peace in the world?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Framework Agreement between the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning measures to facilitate the restructuring and operation of the European Defence industry was signed on 27 July 2000. One of the objectives of this agreement (article 1, d) is to bring closer, simplify and reduce, where appropriate, national export control procedures for transfers and exports of military goods and technologies.

When issuing export licences the signatory States of this Framework Agreement, which are all members of the European Union, shall abide by the criteria set out by the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports adopted by the Council on 8 June 1998. The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions or armed conflicts and the preservation of regional peace, security and stability are among the criterions set out by the EU Code of Conduct, which are all designed to avoid the risk that arms exports from EU Member States might be used for internal repression or international aggression or regional instability.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Deposits on disposable bottles in Germany

Germany's environment ministers recently agreed to introduce a statutory deposit on cans and disposable bottles. The regulation is to take effect in the summer of 2001, so as to control the quota of re-usable products and the flood of cans. It will encourage consumers to return their bottles to the the company that sells its products in disposable bottles. This is in fact creating difficulties for companies which import disposable bottles into Germany, and then have to take the bottles back although the legislation of their own country does not provide for this.

Is a regulation passed by a single country in this way not setting in train a market mechanism that runs counter to the free internal market and free trade? Is action of this kind compatible with EU principles?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3799/00 and E-3974/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Conference of German Environment Ministers, in October 2000, adopted a common communication calling for an amendment of the existing German packaging ordinance. They asked the Federal Minister, Mr Jürgen Trittin, to draft a proposal of an amendment, which would introduce an obligatory deposit for a number of beverage packagings.

The Federal Environment Ministry has not yet produced this draft. Therefore, the amendment of the ordinance is, at this stage, merely a political objective of the Conference of German Environment Ministers, which is likely to be subject to modifications following the completion of the formal consultation process, which is not yet underway.

It would therefore be premature, at this point in time, to presume conflicts between a possible amendment of the German packaging ordinance and existing Community law. However, the Commission is closely following this issue and will examine the draft proposal once it is produced.

As far as the existing German packaging ordinance is concerned, which foresees inter alia a minimum refill quota of 72 % for beverage packaging, the Commission issued in July 2000 a Reasoned Opinion to Germany. The Commission believes that the German legislation infringes the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1) in conjunction with Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty as far as natural mineral waters are concerned, which are to be filled at source, as the appropriate balance between free movement of these goods and environmental protection has not been clearly struck.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4147/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Aid for single-parent families

What sum from the Structural Funds did the Spanish Government earmark for aid for single-parent families in 2000?

What amount was actually paid out? In the event of any deviation between aid approved and aid paid out, what were the reasons for that deviation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) sets out three major Structural Funds objectives: promoting the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind, aid for the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties, and assistance in adapting and modernising policies and systems of education, training and employment.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is responsible for monitoring the programmes cofinanced by the Structural Funds. However, it is the managing authority designated by the Member State which is responsible for managing the operations, and this body may have such detailed information.

However, it should be noted that single-parent families are not, as such, beneficiaries of the Structural Funds, but they may receive assistance from the Funds through measures planned for the various operations cofinanced by the Structural Funds in Spain. In particular, the priorities relating to the participation of women in the labour market and the integration of people with specific difficulties, together with equal opportunities as an across-the-board priority, can provide opportunities for single-parent families.

In this way, the Structural Funds, while also helping to make improvements in the labour market and to eliminate inequalities, can support the integration of single-parent families.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3919/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Bathing Water Directive

Would the Commission explain how it is that Member States, despite formal complaints to the Commission, contrary to the requirements of the 76/160/EC(1) Bathing Water Directive, are being permitted to continue to publicise false passes for bathing waters proven to fail the Directive mandatory standard? I refer to the United Kingdom, which in 1999 claimed 491 passes to mandatory conformity (91,4 % compliant) and 45 failures (8,8 % non-compliant) of their 537 designated bathing water resorts, when the findings conclusively prove only 54 (10 %) to pass, 76 (14,2 %) to fail with the remaining 407 (75,8 %) of unknown compliance due to dismissal and lack of testing for all four mandatory microbiological pathogens?

Does the Commission agree that issue of such false conformities is a threat to the health of unsuspecting people innocently entering such polluted waters, and will it take action to ensure factual and responsible public reporting of bathing water quality by all Member States in the future?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission does not consider issuing such information as the Honourable Member is referring to is a threat to human health. Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 main objective is to protect citizens against sewage polluted bathing water. The main indicators for sewage pollution are faecal indicators, such as faecal coliforms. The results presented in the Commission's annual report are based on the microbiological parameters, total and faecal coliforms which refer to possible human health risks; and three physico-chemical parameters or aesthetic parameters, i.e. is the water attractive to go bathing mineral oils, surface-active substances (detergents) and phenols (residue of chemical industry). Salmonella and enterovirus are not such indicators. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate about the relevance of these parameters in relation to bathing water quality management. The Commission has therefore asked the World health organisation (WHO) for its opinion on the issue.

Strictly legally speaking there is a case to disqualify beaches if salmonella/enterovirus are found to be present and to pursue Member States for not testing for salmonella and/or enterovirus. However, there is no statistical information to allow for a substantiated and meaningful evaluation of the situation across the Community. The Commission is currently assessing what action has been taken in all Member States to follow-up these parameters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4101/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. The EIB and the Århus Convention.



Official Journal 235 E , 21/08/2001 P. 0069 - 0069



WRITTEN QUESTION E-4101/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council (10 January 2001) Subject: The EIB and the Århus Convention Does the Council consider that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is covered by the obligations contained in the Århus Convention? Reply (7 May 2001) The Council would inform the Honourable Member that his question is not a matter for the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3934/00

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Emission standards for diesel locomotives

The transport of goods by rail needs to be modernised in line with developments in road transport and inland waterways. Modern inland waterways vessels and freight vehicles (Euro III) are subject to (more) stringent emission standards. In contrast to developments in the United States, there are no rules in the European Union on diesel locomotives. According to the National Traffic and Transport Plan (of 14 October 2000), the Netherlands is working within the EU towards introducing emission standards for diesel locomotives.

To what extent is the Commission considering modifying directive 97/68/EC(1) in which railway locomotives appear as a separate category (Annex I: Scope)?

To what extent is the Commission prepared to follow the EPA's Emission Standards Locomotives (63 Final Rule 18977)?

Does the Commission have a plan for phasing out obsolete (diesel) locomotives, or a programme for bringing the emission standards for goods transport by rail in line with the standards in force for road transport and inland waterways?

(1) OJ L 59, 27.2.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Directive 97/68/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery(1) has certain limitations. It only covers compression ignition (diesel) engines with a power output between 18 and 560 kilowatt (kW). Furthermore certain applications are exempted not only railway locomotives but ships, aircrafts and generating sets as well.

In recital 5 of the Directive, an extension of the scope to cover also gasoline engines is foreseen. A proposal on this topic is currently on its way and will hopefully be adopted by the Commission shortly. A third stage of emission limits for the compression ignition engines is also foreseen (Article 19) and the development in this respect has recently started.

A possible extension of the scope of the Directive, to also cover ships and railway locomotives, is still to be decided upon but it will be considered in connection with the ongoing development of the stage III for compression ignition engines. If deciding to do so, a world-wide alignment will be an issue of high priority and in that content current legislation in the United States will be of particular interest.

Furthermore, the Commission adopted on 12 October 2000 a proposal(2) for modification of the Directive 94/25/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft(3) to include exhaust and sound emissions requirements on spark-ignition and compression ignition recreational marine engines installed on pleasure boats.

(1) OJ L 59, 27.2.1998.

(2) COM(2000) 639 final.

(3) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4116/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE), Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Public works contracts and the fight against unemployment

Previous parliamentary questions as to whether objective social criteria should form part of the criteria for the awarding of public works contracts (see Questions E-0816/00 and E-0817/00(1)) have always met with a negative response, with the Commission alleging that this would be incompatible with Directive 93/37/EC(2) on coordinating procedures for the awarding of public works contracts.

Certain public authorities, galvanised by the enormous problem of unemployment in their respective Member States, have in fact included certain conditions concerning the creation or protection of stable employment amongst their public works contract award criteria, conditions which do not, however, entail discrimination against tenders from other Member States. The Commission has opened proceedings against several of these public authorities. In case C-255/98, Commission v. French Republic, this has led to a Court of Justice ruling that the public works contract Directives do not exclude the possible inclusion, by the contracting bodies, of a condition linked with the fight against unemployment as one of the awarding criteria, provided that the condition in question respects all the fundamental principles of Community law and, particularly, the principle of non-discrimination (paragraph 50 of the judgment).

In the light of the conclusions of this judgment, how does the Commission intend to pursue the proceedings it has opened against certain public authorities? Is it going to incorporate these conclusions in the new directives on public contracts which are currently being adopted by the Community institutions, so as to clarify the spirit of the ruling in question?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 164.

(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The question asked by the Honourable Members, which concerns the implications of the recent judgment of the Court of Justice (C-225/98 School buildings, Nord-Pas de Calais) for the handling of infringement proceedings and the future directives on public procurement, raises complex issues.

The Commission is currently examining this case law and will present its interpretation in an interpretative communication on the possibilities of taking into account social objectives in public procurement, which it undertook to adopt by the end of June 2001.

On the basis of that communication, the Commission will decide on the action to be taken in infringement proceedings against certain Member States.

Furthermore, in the light of the communication and taking into account the discussions in the Council and in Parliament on the adoption of the recast public procurement directives, the Commission will examine the case for proposing the incorporation of an explicit provision in the legislation in order to clarify the possibility of including social criteria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4153/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: EU law

A Mr Grantham, who lives in Bristol, UK, was employed by GEA Canzler as a sales representative in June 1997. As GEA Canzler does not have an operational company in the UK, Mr Grantham organised his own tax, national insurance, pension, etc.

In October 2000, GEA terminated Mr Grantham's contract with immediate effect. This was done despite there being a 3-year notice period on each side. In addition, GEA Canzler has not met many of its obligations to Mr Grantham, and a total of almost GBP 20 000 in unpaid commission and expenses is owed to Mr Grantham.

Would the Commission indicate if this summary cancelling of Mr Grantham's contract and failure to fulfil obligations contravenes EU law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

It is not the Commission's task to intervene in individual disputes between employees and their employers. The question of the termination of employment relationships has been however under consideration within the Commission for a number of years. In 1997 the Commission published a report entitled Termination of employment relationships legal situation in the Member States of the European Union. A copy of this report will be forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament. However, there is no European legislation in this area as regards individual dismissals. Therefore, the case mentioned by the Honourable Member must be analysed and settled in the light of the relevant national legislation and by the competent national authority.