ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Regional GDP

Can the Commission confirm whether, in one of the studies commissioned by it for the cohesion report, it is stated unequivocally that production and disposable income are, where the regions are concerned, two totally different concepts?

Can it confirm whether it is stated in the same study that to confuse production with income would inflate "income" figures to artificially high levels in the case of the more productive regions of the less prosperous Member States, and would have the reverse effect with the less productive regions of the more prosperous Member States?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2010/98, E-2011/98, E-2013/98 and E-2014/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1998)

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of production generated by resident producer units. The value of production equates to the sum of the incomes - wages, rents and profits - that are created in the course of productive activity. The existence of this identity means that the terms GDP and income are sometimes used interchangeably. At the same time, incomes from production are not the same as the disposable incomes of citizens. The disposable incomes of citizens are derived from the productive income net of taxes and transfers.

Where Agenda 2000(1) refers to income in the context of Community structural policies, it is clearly defined in terms of GDP. This is particularly relevant to decisions relating to the identification of lagging regions under Objective 1, where GDP is an excellent measure of the level of development. Accordingly, in Agenda 2000 the proposed Objective 1 criteria are defined unambiguously in terms of GDP per capita.

The differences between income from production and disposable income are clearly recognised in the Commission's first cohesion report of 1996 and in the underlying study to which the Honourable Member refers. In the report, it is stated that "the distribution of personal disposable income (PDI) can differ significantly from the distribution of income before taxes and benefits". While disposable income indicates what people living in a region can actually spend, GDP indicates what is produced in a region and therefore, expressed per capita, its state of economic development.

The study will shortly be published. In the meantime, a copy is transmitted direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/98

by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Salaries of officials

Public opinion in Sweden is shocked that Swedish citizens working at the Commission and Parliament information offices in Stockholm receive very high salaries while paying a much lower rate of tax than ordinary members of the public. In Sweden, this leaves the heads of the two information offices with higher salaries after tax than the Swedish Prime Minister.

Should European Union officials based in their own countries not also pay tax in accordance with the tax regulations applying in those countries?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

Under the terms of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities(1), officials are liable to a tax for the benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by the Communities. The tax is deducted at source and the proceeds are paid into the Community budget. There are 14 tax rates ranging from 8 % to 45 % applied to consecutive salary bands.

Officials are exempt from direct national income taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities. They pay, of course, indirect taxes (such as value added tax) according to national tax regimes.

With specific reference to officials posted to Commission representations, Commission policy is to limit as far as possible the number posted to their own Member State(2) and to apply a four year rotation system.

(1) See Article 13 of Chapter V. The protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities is annexed to the Treaty signed on 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the Communities and was accepted by Sweden in the accession Treaty.

(2) Less than 1 % of officials are posted to representations, and even less to their own Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: The imprisonment of Petrus Hariyanto in Indonesia

Amnesty International has drawn attention to the Indonesian student Petrus Hariyanto who is serving an eight-year sentence in Cipinang prison in Indonesia because he was one of the co-founders of the political party PRD.

As far as is known, he has never been guilty of violence; nor has he ever propagated it.

Will the Commission ask the Indonesian authorities if this political detainee can be released, now that the government has adopted a more democratic stance?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1998)

The Commission regularly calls on the Indonesian authorities to release all political prisoners in Indonesia and will continue to do so. So far, only a limited number of political prisoners have been released, with many still remaining in prison.

Petrus Hariyanto, one of the leaders of the political party PRD, was sentenced to eight years in jail in 1997 under the anti-subversion law. Although PRD is no longer a prohibited political party, Mr Hariyanto and the other imprisoned PRD leaders have not yet been released.

The Commission will continue to include Petrus Hariyanto among the list of political prisoners whose release is urged upon the Indonesian government.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3103/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Purchase of Manchester United Football Club

In view of the purchase of Manchester United Football Club by Rupert Murdoch, will the Commission confirm that any attempt to prevent television stations (other than those which are part of Mr Murdoch's media empire) from acquiring television rights would constitute a breach of Article 86?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Article 86 EC of the EC Treaty prohibits any abuse by undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

However, the application of Article 86 to any individual case depends on an evaluation of the surrounding legal and economic circumstances in order to determine, in particular, whether, in fact, the undertaking holds a dominant position and whether its conduct amounts to an abuse of that dominant position.

It is not, therefore, possible to determine at this stage whether, in the event that BSkyB's bid for Manchester united football club is successful and obtains the necessary clearances, any possible future conduct of BSkyB would contravene Article 86 EC of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care

The so-called "doctor directives", Directives 75/362/EEC(1) and 75/363/EEC(2) regulate, on the basis of analogous criteria (mutual recognition and right of establishment) the right to practise, among other things, odontostomatology (activities simply involving the treatment of mouth and teeth problems carried out without restrictions by doctors).

It should be noted that the "doctor directives" do not specify the fields of activity of doctors, only the criteria for their training. Indeed, no Member State has ever considered it possible to place an anatomical limit on the scope of the actions of a doctor called upon to treat a patient. Only in Italy has it been deemed that because the treatment of one part of the body (the teeth, mouth, etc.) has been entrusted to a health-care professional who is not a doctor this should automatically mean that this part of the body must by law no longer come within a doctor's sphere of activity.

Can the Commission say whether any Community legislation or precedents exist that may in any way have imposed some kind of regulatory framework on Member States forcing them explicitly to ban doctors from practising in the areas of the treatment of the mouth and the teeth?

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3096/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: The monopoly enjoyed in Italy by CONI - football clubs and free competition

The monopoly enjoyed in Italy by CONI [Italian National Olympic Committee] in professional and amateur competitive sporting activities, organised under law No 426 of 16 February 1942, is no longer tenable, not least in view of the substantial hand-outs the Italian state gives to CONI each year. The regulatory authority responsible for competition and markets, which has frequently been the subject of questions in the Italian Parliament calling for it to act, has never taken any action to assert the principle that the legislator should foster competition and break up monopolies. In particular, the action taken by the regulatory authority in respect of clubs in divisions A and B of the Italian Football League to tackle the perennial contractual issue of pay-per-view television rights has been ineffective, since it is directed at a body that belongs to the Italian Football Federation (Article 6(II) of the Statute) which effectively enjoys a monopoly in the game of soccer (Articles 1 and 2 of the Statute). The action taken by the regulatory authority fails to assert the principle of free competition, thereby benefitting a small number of groups operating in the sports industry.

Can the Council say whether or not everyone is free to organise professional and amateur sporting activities, on a one-off or series basis, in a free market system, unlike the CONI-dominated monopolistic system that exists in Italy, in particular in view of the multi-billion lira subsidies CONI receives?

Reply

(7 December 1998)

Given the division of responsibilities between Institutions provided for by the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Council can only inform the Honourable Member that this is a matter for the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 89 and 90 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Rehabilitation of persons in Italy named in a notice of dishonour

Approximately twelve million people in Italy who have been named in a notice of dishonour have no practical possibility of obtaining credit, purely as a result, more often than not, of mistakes, delays, and negligence by banks and government departments. What is more, the disputed sums of money were frequently modest. It is undoubtedly the case that many of the persons affected, by force of circumstance, have fallen victim to usury. About a quarter of the Italian population will consequently be unable, de facto, to benefit from the new euro, since the Italian authorities have made no plans to reverse their disqualification in advance of the economic change-over. The Italian banking system likewise appears to be behind the times on this point because the Bank of Italy has failed to control the widespread practice of credit institutions, which debar persons named in a notice of dishonour from holding even a current account and making simple banking transactions, a fact which has also been criticised by SNARP, the National Association for the Abolition of Usury and the Rehabilitation of Persons Named in a Notice of Dishonour.

1. Will the Commission take steps to help persons named in a notice of dishonour who are seeking to restore their reputation?

2. Will it adopt specific measures to curb usury?

3. What role might the European Central Bank play in overseeing the ability of private individuals in general to make use of credit?

4. Does the Commission not believe that it should consider what specific measures might be taken to deal with the Italian case, given that a huge number of individuals and entrepreneurs (about a quarter of the adult population) are to all intents and purposes excluded from wealth creation, leading to the inevitable consequences for the economy and employment?

5. What is the Commission's general view on the matter raised above?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3065/98

by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Plans to make lotteries subject to European competition law

The opening of infringment proceedings against Ireland pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the request by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice and proposals to make lotteries subject to European competition law rather than national legislation have given rise to some debate in the Federal Republic of Germany.

As far as I am aware, the German Länder do not intend to open up the German lottery market to foreign organisers. A range of different issues play a crucial role here, in particular tax considerations.

Can the Commission say:

1. What led the Commission to abandon its original declaration at the EU summit in Edinburgh of 12 December 1992 that it would not seek to regulate lotteries?

2. What stage has been reached in the infringment proceedings against Ireland pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty?

3. What opinion has the Commission expressed in relation to the request by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice in the Läärä case C-124/97?

4. Has the subject been discussed in the Ecofin Council and, if not, when are such discussions scheduled to take place?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it continues to stand by its 1992 declaration that completion of the internal market in the area of gambling does not require legislation. This is borne out by the fact that no proposal has been submitted either to the Council or to the Parliament for examination or decision. This position could, however, be reviewed in the light of new developments.

In its judgment of 24 March 1994 on the Schindler Case (C-275/92), the Court of Justice held that the organisation of lotteries (like other forms of gambling) was an economic activity falling within the scope of Community law and that, given its peculiar nature, Member States might wish to take steps to restrict it, provided such measures were not discriminatory.

Consequently, if the Commission receives a complaint and its examination leads it to suspect that there are unjustified discriminatory measures in this domain, it can launch infringement proceedings against the Member State, which always has the opportunity to submit its observations. In this regard, the infringement proceedings against Ireland, which replied to the reasoned opinion sent to it, will be conducted in the light of the Schindler case-law and the forthcoming judgment on the Läärä Case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that in the Läärä Case, the Commission considered that granting a monopoly to a public body in the area of slot machines was a restriction which was not incompatible with the principles of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services as set out in Articles 52 and 59 respectively of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Unfair tax treatment of single-income families

In its Judgment No 358 of 13 and 14 July 1995 on the lawfulness of Presidential Decree No 597 of 29 September 1973, particularly Article 3, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that the current system for taxing single-income families was wholly iniquitous as regards the restitution of 50 per cent of the personal income tax and referred all corresponding decisions to the legislator. This tax system conflicted with Article 3 (equality before the law for spouses), Articles 29 and 31 (protection of the family) and Article 53 (fair taxation) of the Italian Constitution.

In the light of this clear ruling by the Italian Constitutional Court, the European Commission's pronouncements on taxation and the initiatives taken by certain trade-union organizations, including the SAPEF (Sindacato Autonomo Pensionati Ferrovie) [Independent Union of Retired Railway Workers], will the Commission say whether:

1. it agrees that the Italian authorities should be asked to put an end to this unlawful and unequal treatment of Italian citizens?

2. there are any European directives which impose equal tax treatment on the Member States?

3. it will state its general position on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answer given to Written Question E-2510/97 by Mr Rauti(1).

It would note that, on its reading of the judgment referred to by the Honourable Member, the Constitutional Court refused to rule that constitutional rights had been infringed. The Court had simply referred to the right of the Italian legislature to modify the unsatisfactory tax treatment of single-income families. In any event, the Commission would have no jurisdiction to make representations to the Italian authorities if the Italian constitution were infringed.

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Telephone security

Is the Commission aware of the report that the "codes" protecting GSM phones have been internationally weakened to enable Government agencies to eavesdrop on conversation? While the encryption key is a 64-bit system, two graduate students have determined that the last 10 digits have been set as zeros, making the code easier to crack for interception and, in consequence, allowing "cloning", meaning that unauthorized calls can be made from another phone at the expense of the initial user.

Does the Commission agree that, if this claim is true, this encouragement to electronic fraud by deliberately leaving the electronic key under the mat is wrong?

Will the Commission ask the relevant companies in future to use the full potential of the system to limit fraud?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 1998)

The Commission is certainly aware of recent reports concerning the apparent effective reduction in the operational length of global system for mobile communications (GSM) encryption keys. Even if the reports are true, the work required to decrypt a message with such a reduced key length would still be substantial. It is also not clear that this is other than an original design feature of the GSM system. In any event, encryption within the GSM system is intended to provide privacy over the air link and not end-to-end confidentiality. Thus, once a message reaches the operator's base station, the message is subsequently handled "en clair" (unless it is re-transmitted to another GSM hand-set).

It would be an overstatement to say that this claimed feature of GSM is an encouragement to electronic fraud. The key has not been left "under the mat" as, for example, in a key escrow system. The issue of cloning of terminals is not related to the privacy question. The authentication of terminals in a GSM network is handled through a different technical system which, unlike the message encryption system, is not part of the standard but is left to the individual operator to decide upon. Hence, several technical solutions are in use for authentication around the world.

The Commission is not aware of any privacy or authentication related problems in operational GSM networks. The reports received by the Commission concern laboratory experiments which do not resemble the practical situation in real networks.

The GSM memorandum of understanding (MoU) group association, which represents about 250 GSM operators around the world and is responsible for exploiting the full potential of the GSM system, will no doubt react to these claims, in the appropriate manner, if they believe it to be necessary. The GSM MoU association has a permanent secretariat which can be contacted to obtain further information (Merrion Road, Dublin 4, Ireland, fax +353 1269 5958).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/98

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failings

The report by the joint steering committee and recent press reports raise important questions about the proper implementation of projects undertaken in Greece within the framework of the Second Community Support Framework and the Cohesion Fund. In particular these reports note a number of violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship by the construction companies and attribute responsibility for projects worth a total of Drs 2 billion to the supervising bodies and the relevant ministries; the possibility of recovering the money is also being considered.

Will the Commission say:

1. What violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship is it apprised of or have been otherwise detected, and which projects are concerned?

2. How is the implementation of projects monitored and to what extent is this monitoring adequate and effective?

3. Which bodies are responsible for the violations and what sanctions are provided for?

4. What measures are being proposed specifically to rectify omissions and also to avoid similar incidents in future?

5. How will it ensure the proper use of the funds set aside in the Community budget for the implementation of projects?

Answer given by MrsWulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2948/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Secondary law in the field of immigration and asylum policy

As the documents show, there have been some 70 Council legal acts in the field of immigration policy in the last few years.

1. Which acts are involved, specifically? Please give details, with the appropriate references.

2. Are there moves for more extensive coordination of the law?

3. What is the Commission's explanation for the fact that the aim of "sustainably influencing the reality of migration through the European Union in an empirically verifiable manner"(1) has not, after all, succeeded?

4. Where and how are data from the Centres for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum and on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration accessible to the public or MEPs?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

1. This question concerns acts adopted by the Council which are not based on the initiative of the Commission. The Honourable Member should therefore refer to the Council.

2. The Honourable Member will recall that the Cardiff European Council of 15-16 June 1998 called on the Council and the Commission to submit at its meeting in Vienna on 11-12 December 1998 an action plan to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice. A draft of such an action plan is under discussion in the coordinating committee set up under article K4 of the Treaty on European Union. As required by Article 63 of the consolidated EC Treaty, it will set out a five year programme on measures relating to asylum, refugees and displaced people, immigration policy and the rights of third country nationals who are legally resident in a Member State.

3. For this question the Honourable Member should refer to the Presidency.

4. This question relates to access to documents and has to be answered by the institutions concerned, in this case the Council.

(1) Strategy paper on immigration and asylum policy 9809/98, ASIM 170 [unofficial English version of quotation as document not available - Translator's note].