ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3080/01

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Nuclear fusion under the Sixth Framework Programme

The Commission organised an informal meeting of Science and Technology Ministers on 19 January 2001 to discuss a paper on the future strategy for the European Fusion Programme. In accordance with the Ministers' majority view the Commission drew up a proposal for a Euratom programme for the Sixth Framework Programme, in which the construction of ITER is the first priority for the Fusion Programme.

Since the paper presented by the Commission at the meeting of 19 January states that the European Fusion Programme needs an allocation of EUR 850 million for options 3 and 4 (which envisage an immediate start on the construction of ITER) and bearing in mind that the Commission's proposal for the Sixth Framework Programme suggests a budget of EUR 700 million, can the Commission say:

1. why the budget has been cut by EUR 150 m;

2. whether it considers that this cut, combined with the fact that EUR 200 m are earmarked for the construction of ITER, will create problems for the success of the research essential for the operation of ITER and jeopardise the European Union's position as world leader in research into alternative energies?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

In its proposal concerning the Sixth Euratom Framework Programme, the Commission confirmed the reactor orientation of fusion energy research. In order to step up coordination in the framework of the European Research Area, the Commission proposes to concentrate Community resources on joint projects such as the ITER project, if it is decided to build it, or the use of JET.

The political agreement reached in the Research Council on 10 December 2001, bringing to 750 million the financial amount for fusion for the period 2002-2006, will make it possible to achieve these objectives without calling into question the EU's role with regard to fusion. The Commission considers that the Member States should bear a larger proportion of the costs of the activities specific to the national fusion associations which are less integrated than the activities at European level.

Depending on the timetable for the completion of ITER, part of the 200 million earmarked for this project in the proposal could fund joint research activities such as the use of JET in order to prepare for the implementation of ITER.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2482/01

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Drought and famine in Central America

According to reports received by the questioner, the drought which has been affecting Central America for three months has destroyed between 40 and 100 % of the harvest of maize, beans, rice and sorghum in some areas and famine is affecting 1,6 million people in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, according to figures supplied by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).

Can the Commission say whether it has taken any steps to provide aid and what the result has been?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation's (FAO) Special Alert Report No 317 of 3 September 2001(1) current estimates for Central America's aggregate cereal output are of 2,3 million tonnes, some 8 percent lower than the last five-year average. This drop is largely due to the drought or unevenly distributed rains during the period June-August 2001 that followed abundant rains in May 2001.

The cumulative effects of the successive natural disasters Hurricane Mitch, earthquakes and drought , the dramatic fall in the prices of critical export crops (coffee, banana) and the structural inadequacies of agricultural policies, contributed to the worsening of the overall poverty situation and food insecurity amongst large groups of the rural populations.

All indications are that current food aid needs are being met by the governments of the region, through the use of strategic reserves and imports, complemented with food aid contributions made by World Food Programme (WFP), United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

Until this moment the governments have not requested additional emergency relief and no appeals have been received from international relief organisations or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However the continuation of the adverse agricultural conditions might will exhaust the governments' capacity in the short run and may require additional donor support.

The Commission is currently providing financial support in excess of 2,2 millions to NGOs (through Euronaid) for the provision of agricultural inputs for El Salvador. The Commission is also considering the possible reorientation of some on-going projects and the use of contingencies to better meet the needs created by the present crisis.

The Commission is following with attention the situation in the region through its Delegations with the support of the Food Security and ECHO's resident advisors. Until 31 August 2001 the Commission could also rely upon high quality reporting and analysis provided by the former Technical Assistance Office of the European network for food safety (RESAL).

(1) http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/alertes/2001/SA317CA.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3126/01

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Consistency of competition legislation

Under Finnish competition legislation all investments have to be approved by the national competition authority if a single investor makes several investments in the same sector of activity within a two-year period. In practice the law requires every investor, even those with minority interests, to submit documents to the Office of Fair Competition.

The situation is frustrating for both investors and the national competition authority, because the office invariably approves investments. The procedure costs small growth enterprises tens of thousands of euros and is a downright competitive disadvantage.

Finland is the only Member State which requires investors to explain their position in this way.

Is the Commission aware of the problems which Finnish competition legislation is causing for growth enterprises, investors, and the competition authorities? Is the national law in question contrary to the competition provisions of the Treaty and EU competition legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of Finnish competition legislation causing problems for companies, investors and competition authorities. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member the Commission can see no grounds which would require investigation under the Community competition rules. As a general rule, Articles 81 and 82 (ex Article 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty apply to agreements and behaviour of economic undertakings and only in very limited circumstances can a Member State be held to have infringed these provisions. The information provided in the question does not reveal such circumstances. Furthermore, the question does not give any indication that there is an issue of privileged undertakings which might fall under Article 86 (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3003/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Identity check at Charles de Gaulle Airport

With reference to Question E-1485/01(1), which I put to the Council on 21 May 2001, I am dismayed at the tenor and quality of the answer I received on a matter as specific as respect for the right of European citizens to move freely within the Schengen area.

Given that the application of this principle affects thousands of European citizens every day, could the Council explain why it took more than four months to supply such an evasive answer?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 125.

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council has explained to the European Parliament many times, particularly in replies to written questions, the Council's procedures for checking replies, the decision-making procedure which has to be followed, and the need to provide precise, reliable, high-quality information on the positions which the Council has taken on the subjects raised in parliamentary questions inevitably require a certain amount of time, although the Council continues to do its utmost to reply as quickly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Inclusion of Galicia in the development of airport capacity as one of the priority actions laid down in the White Paper on European transport policy

In the White Paper on European transport policy(1) the development of airport capacity is regarded as one of the constituent parts of that policy. How does the upgrading of the airport at Santiago de Compostela (in Galicia) to international status fit into the policy? What is the Spanish Government's timetable for the project and how much funding is it to be allocated?

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The Decision 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN)(1) awards the status of Community connecting point for the airport at Santiago de Compostela (in Galicia); as such, the aforementioned airport is eligible for Community co-financing.

The Council underlines that the decision regarding the actual implementation of a particular project related to airport capacity and use lies with the national authorities. It is for the Commission, assisted by the TEN committee, to monitor through the exchange of information the plans and programmes notified by Member States with a view to development of the trans-European network.

The Council furthermore recalls that the Commission in its White Paper announces its intention to launch a reflection regarding airport capacity and use in 2002. On the basis of the result of this exercise, the Commission will integrate, if necessary, projects regarding airports in the framework of its proposal for a large revision of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, due in 2004.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Spanish mobile phone text message prices

The three leading Spanish mobile phone operators, Airtel, Telefónica (Movistar), and Amena, all charge exactly the same prices for text messages. Messages sent within Spain cost Ptas 25 each, and messages sent to other countries Ptas 100 each. Is the Commission investigating these chance similarities in the big operators' price scales? Does it have the means to prevent the formation of price cartels for services of this kind, which, though cheap, are extraordinarily lucrative for the operators?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

So far the Commission has not received any formal complaints concerning the short messages (SMS) pricing practices of mobile network operators, neither in Spain nor elsewhere in the Community. The pricing for SMS roaming on the other hand is already subject of the Commission's sector inquiry into mobile roaming charges in case COMP/C1/37 639, and the Commission is evaluating standard practices and pricing of SMS roaming in the context of the GSM Association's notification of its standard international roaming agreement and inter-operator tariff in Case COMP/C1/37 034.

Parallel pricing in itself is not illegal. Although parallel pricing can be an indication of agreements or of concerted practices on pricing that do infringe the competition rules, the Commission would generally require more substantial prima facie evidence before opening a cartel case at its own initiative. The reported pricing practices for SMS services may reflect the general oligopolistic nature of the national markets for mobile services in the Community, which makes these markets conducive to parallel behaviour both on services that are subject to active price competition, and on services that are not.

The Commission cannot prevent the formation of cartels except by the deterrent effect of fines in its cartel decisions. Where new markets are concerned, as in the case of SMS services, preventive action may in any event be difficult to target even if based on ex ante sector-specific regulation, although the new framework currently under negotiation will provide a more flexible basis for responding in similar circumstances. However, lowering entry barriers and increasing the information available to consumers will reduce the possibilities for collusion among oligopolists, and increase the incentives to compete for customers' business instead.

Meanwhile, the Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's concern and will forward his question to the relevant Spanish authorities, who are better placed to judge whether further action may be warranted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3370/01

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Licences for football clubs

Recently, there have been numerous reports in the press about the financial problems of football clubs in Italy and Spain. Their total debts run to billions of euro.

In the Netherlands, clubs are not permitted to run up such huge debts, because of the licensing policy pursued by the national football federation, the KNVB. Under this policy, each club must demonstrate at the beginning of the national competition that its financial policy is sound. If a club has unacceptably large debts, it is not granted a licence to take part in the national competition.

In most Member States, no such policy exists. As a result, clubs can incur excessive debts in order to contract the best players and perform better. This is a violation of European competition law. UEFA has recognised this problem and has therefore decided to carry out a pilot project next year with a licensing policy similar to that which already applies in the Netherlands. Under this approach, it will take too long to eliminate the aforementioned distortion of the internal market.

Would it be desirable to introduce a European licensing policy to prevent distortion of competition arising from the differences of approach to the financial policy which football clubs are required to pursue in the various Member States?

Will the Commission use its influence to secure more rapid and compulsory introduction of the licensing policy referred to here in consultation with UEFA and FIFA?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem to which the Honourable Member refers. Differences in financial management rules between football clubs in the various Member States may create de facto inequalities between these clubs. The Commission welcomes all initiatives from the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) or from national sporting federations with a view to reducing these differences and making the rules in force more consistent.

Nevertheless, the Commission does not itself plan to take any specific initiatives in this field. It feels that at this stage it is up to the competent authorities, whether public or sporting authorities, to take the necessary measures to harmonise the management rules of European clubs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3047/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Trans-European energy networks

On 6 August 2001 the Commission authorised the granting of financial aid for the trans-European gas and electricity markers, to a total of approximately EUR 19 m. A maximum sum will be payable in aid, corresponding to a percentage of the eligible cost of the action. The undertakings chosen were from Spain, Greece, France, Italy, Sweden and the UK. The Commission received 27 applications in all.

Can the Commission supply the complete list of these 27 candidates? Should there have been any Portuguese candidate on the list, can the Commission explain the grounds on which it was not included among the successful applicants? What selection criteria were employed by the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

In a letter to the Member States dated 12 February 2001, the Commission called for applications for support for projects of common interest in the field of trans-European networks (TENs) Energy. Following this call, the Commission received the 27 requests set out in a table which will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat. One of these requests came from Portugal and concerned direct investment subsidies for project No E142/01 New electricity connection between Portugal and Spain.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks(1) and the Council and Commission statement in the minutes of the meeting at which the Regulation was adopted provide for the co-financing of studies relating to projects of common interest as the usual form of financial support for energy TENs; recourse to other forms of support is regarded as exceptional.

As regards the proposal selection criteria, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2236/95, Community support is intended for projects that are potentially economically viable but the financial profitability of which at the time of application is regarded as insufficient and can be improved.

The other selection criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 which the Commission takes into account when selecting proposals are as follows:

- maturity of the project,

- stimulative effect of Community intervention on public and private finance,

- soundness of the financial package,

- direct or indirect socio-economic effects, in particular on employment, and

- environmental consequences.

It emerged from the information supplied by Rede Electrica National (REN), the project promoter, that the project for a new electricity connection between Portugal and Spain has a high level of financial profitability. This was the main reason why the Commission did not propose any financial support for this project.

(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Tax-free trade and EU diplomats

The decision to abolish tax-free sales in the EU has taken in 1991. During its accession negotiations Finland asked for tax-free ferry traffic until 2005. It did not get it, but did get an exemption for Åland. Åland's exemption from VAT and excise duties applies indefinitely under Finland's accession treaty. Seven out of 15 Member States obtained exemptions to allow tax-free sales to continue, but not Sweden.

Another exemption is that EU diplomats (i.e. those working at the various Commission offices) retain the right to buy 60 litres of alcohol and 20 000 cigarettes a year tax free even after 1 July 1999. The Commissioners are also entitled to buy alcohol tax free, but according to Commissioner Erkki Liikanen they had promised each other (!) not to make use of this right. Have there been any changes here, or does the exemption for EU diplomats to buy 60 litres of alcohol a year tax free still apply, and does the Commission's promise to each other still hold?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

Since duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers were abolished on 1 July 1999, it has only been possible to sell duty-free goods to travellers going to third countries. Where an aircraft or a ferry makes an intermediate call or stopover in a third country or a territory outside the fiscal territory of the Community, in order for passengers to embark or disembark, it will be treated as going to or coming from a third country(1).

The Ålands islands are considered to be outside the fiscal territory of the Community. This status which was granted upon request by Finland during the accession negotiations is justified by the particular status the Åland islands hold under the Finnish constitution.

As regards tax-free purchases by members of the Commission and officials of the Community institutions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to written questions E-4021/98 by Mrs Boogerd-Quaak(2) and E-1996/99 by Mr Ebner(3) which remain valid.

(1) See Commission notice concerning the VAT and excise rules to be applied from 1 July 1999 by suppliers of goods sold on board ferries and aircraft or in airports to passengers travelling within the European Union (OJ C 99, 10.4.1999).

(2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.

(3) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3167/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Co-financing of cooperation and development projects

The Commission has laid down in its development policy that all NGOs submitting a bid must guarantee a minimum contribution of 15 % to direct costs from private European financial resources.

It appears that Denmark is not obliged to provide this 15 % contribution, which most NGOs find so difficult to obtain and which other Member States are supplying from public rather than from private funds.

Can the Commission confirm and explain the reasons for this exemption for Danish projects?

Can the Commission clarify what it understands by private funds and which Member States are contributing to the co-financing of cooperation and development projects with public or semi-public funds?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

In Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 of 17 July 1998, point 3 of Article 6, the following is stipulated with regard to contributions towards co-financing:

The Community contribution shall not, as a rule, exceed 50 % of the total cost or 75 % of total financial contributions, except in exceptional cases. Even in such cases, NGOs shall make a significant contribution to projects and the Community contribution shall not exceed 85 % of the total financial contributions.

The General Conditions for co-financing which came into force in January 2000 and which are based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 elucidate the above regulation with regard to the NGO contribution as follows:

The NGO presenting an application for co-financing must, as a rule, provide a significant financial contribution, originating from private sources in the EU or other European countries, equivalent to at least 15 % of the total financial costs of the operation.

Private funds are generally all funds generated or mobilised by the NGO from non-governmental sources, e.g. through general fundraising campaigns and collections, through sponsorships from individuals or from private companies etc.

A project may be co-financed by various donors. Funds from any other sources, e.g. public funds or private funds from non-European sources, may be included as income towards a project, but they cannot be taken into consideration as part of the 15 % the NGO has to contribute from private European sources.

Since the entry into force of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 and the new General Conditions (Januray 2000) the rule with regard to the NGOs' contribution from private European sources has been applied to all proposals introduced by European NGOs. In other words, the exemption for the Danish NGO's has been abolished.