ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3659/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council. Charter of Fundamental Rights.



Official Journal 163 E , 06/06/2001 P. 0187 - 0187



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3659/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council (28 November 2000) Subject: Charter of Fundamental Rights Why exactly is the Council opposed to giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union legal force? What precisely are the Council's reasons for not incorporating the Charter into the Treaty of Nice? Could the Council specify what the legal status of the Charter is as a solemn proclamation? Reply (26 February 2001) The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the conclusions of the Cologne European Council, it is not for the Council to reply to the questions he has put, which is why it has so far remained silent on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3751/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: The imposition of VAT on recombinant blood products

Will the Commission investigate the imposition of VAT on recombinant blood products in each Member State? Is the Commission aware that this is a matter of concern for people suffering from haemophilia?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Under the present rules of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1), the tax liability of recombinant blood products will vary according to the exact nature of what is being provided.

Whilst there is an exemption (provided by Article 13(A)(1)(d)) which applies to whole human blood, this does not include supplies of products derived from human blood. However, blood products treated as medicinal products, in accordance with the concepts defined by Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 June 1989, extending the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products and laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma(2) may be taxed at a reduced VAT rate, under Article 12(3)(a) and category 3 of Annex H of the 77/388/EEC Directive. The reduced rate would also apply to the recombinant blood products developed by means of biotechnological processes, included in part A of the Annex to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, of 22 July 1993, laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal products(3). Blood products other than those mentioned above must be taxed at the standard rate.

The Commission is aware that a lack of consistency in this matter exists and intends to address this in the near future, in the context of its new VAT strategy for the improvement of the operation of the VAT system within the Internal Market(4).

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) OJ L 181, 28.6.1989. As a result of this Directive, products based on blood constituents, which are prepared industrially by public or private establishments are considered to be medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma. This is the case with albumin, coagulating factors and immunoglobulins of human origin.

(3) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(4) COM(2000) 348 final, available on the Europa site at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/publications/official_doc/com/com.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3946/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Ecofin documents

1. Will the Commission make available the detailed forecast documents for its latest forecast equivalent to last year's documents ECFIN/600/99-EN and ECFIN/599/99-EN?

2. Will the Commission list the documents that have been made available by it to the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers (Ecofin) in the last three months?

3. Will the Commission list the documents that have been received by it from the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers (Ecofin) in the last three months?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

1. The Commission's economic forecasts were presented by the member of the Commission responsible for economic and financial affairs on 22 November 2000. The documents ECFIN/620/00 and ECFIN/621/00, which are equivalent to last year's documents ECFIN/600/99 and ECFIN/599/99, were made available on that date and can be obtained from the secretariat of unit ECFIN-B-5 Forecasts and economic situation. Document 621/00 has moreover been published in European Economy (Supplement A; No 10/11 October/November 2000), which is also available in extenso on the website of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs: http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/.

2. Documents are sent by the Commission to the Council rather than to specific Council formations. There is therefore no list of Ecofin documents available within the Commission. A list of documents dealing with economic and financial matters which have been sent by the Commission to the Council during the last quarter of the year 2000 is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

3. The Commission does not keep a list of all documents received by it from the Council. In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct on public access to Commission documents of 8 February 1994(1), requests for documents written by other bodies should be addressed to the author of such documents.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4103/00

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Implications of sanctions policy against Austria

Austria's contribution to European integration and its relations with the other Member States have always been based on the principles of loyalty and respect.

The sanctions policy which was rigidly applied against Austria has now been suspended.

Will the Commission state what its current views and intentions are with respect to this country, which was one of the first to commit itself to upholding and promoting such values as democracy and the rule of law and now continues to uphold more fully and effectively the will of the people?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission's intentions in relation to Austria in no way differ from those which guide its action towards any other Member State. It goes without saying that the Commission can only be pleased at the respect for democracy and legality shown by each Member State, in accordance with the obligations contained in the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3587/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Environmental pollution caused by the Chalkis Cement factory

The Chalkis Cement factory lies very close to the town of Chalkis and has, since its construction, discharged large amounts of cement dust over many districts of the town. Protests by the local authorities and inhabitants have failed to have any effect.

The factory has undertaken certain improvements by installing filters in its chimneys. However, a significant part of the entire production process still takes place in the open (transport and storage of materials, etc.) so that a gust of wind is enough to carry the dust into the town. Most estimates agree that if the appropriate investments were made it would be possible to carry out the entire process under cover, and indeed the factory claims to have such a programme in place. If this is true, implementation has long been delayed and the outlook for the future is uncertain.

Since the above clearly constitutes a breach of Community legislation, will the Commission say whether it intends to look into the question and take whatever steps are appropriate to put an end to the pollution of the town of Chalkis by cement dust as rapidly as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission wrote to the Greek authorities on 13 September 1999 asking for information about how the Chaldis cement factory operates. In particular, with reference to Directive 84/360/EEC(1), it asked for precise information about emissions of SO2, NOX and dust from the company's various units. At the annual meeting on the introduction of Community environmental legislation in Greece on 9 and 10 December 1999, the Greek authorities promised to send detailed information on how the company works. In February 2000, the Greek authorities sent information about the company's unit D.

The Commission will write to the Greek authorities again to ask for information about the company's other units. It will ask for more extensive information about NOX emissions from the company's unit D.

(1) Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (OJ L 188, 16.7.1984).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal spare parts and exemption

With regard to the Electronic Waste (WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposals, would the Commission agree that a ban on substances in spare parts would have an impact on their design which might make them incompatible with the electronic products in which they were used? Does the Commission agree that this will lead to unnecessary waste creation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3867/00, E-3868/00 and E-3869/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Article 4 of the Proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment(1) foresees the substitution of certain heavy metals and brominated flame retardants in this equipment with effect from 1 January 2008. Clearly, this requirement refers only to new equipment placed on the market after 1 January 2008 and does not affect equipment already on the market at that date.

It is not the intention to prohibit the use of spare parts containing one or more of the substances targeted by the Proposal if the functioning of electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market for the first time before 2008 would be jeopardized without such spare parts. The Commission agrees that otherwise electrical and electronic equipment might have to be discarded unnecessarily.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal spare parts and transition

With regard to the Electronic Waste (WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposals, would the Commission agree that, during a transitional period, spare parts for use in products put on the market before 2008 will need to be exempted from the ban on use of certain hazardous substances? If so, what transitional period would the Commission have in mind?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3867/00, E-3868/00 and E-3869/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Article 4 of the Proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment(1) foresees the substitution of certain heavy metals and brominated flame retardants in this equipment with effect from 1 January 2008. Clearly, this requirement refers only to new equipment placed on the market after 1 January 2008 and does not affect equipment already on the market at that date.

It is not the intention to prohibit the use of spare parts containing one or more of the substances targeted by the Proposal if the functioning of electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market for the first time before 2008 would be jeopardized without such spare parts. The Commission agrees that otherwise electrical and electronic equipment might have to be discarded unnecessarily.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4074/00

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) and Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Council

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Increasing production of feed proteins in response to the recent ban on use of animal meal

The ban on animal meal in farm animal feed will increase the Community's demand for vegetable protein. It is necessary to meet that demand without increasing either our dependence on imports or our exposure to GMOs.

Does the Council intend to implement an emergency plan for increasing Community production of vegetable protein along the following lines:

1. As regards protein crops such as peas, field beans and lupins, which are not subject to any international restrictions, raising payments per hectare would be the key factor.

2. As regards the Blair House agreements, limits on Community production of food oilseeds to 4 934 000 ha will end in 2002 with the removal of specific aid, which is to be replaced, in accordance with Agenda 2000, by compensatory aid common to all arable crops. The critical year will therefore be 2001, for which a derogation for reasons of force majeur will have to be negotiated with our partners in order to allow areas to be increased on the basis of the current level of aid.

3. As regards dehydrated fodder, given that alfalfa is an entirely wholesome source of protein we can substantially increase the maximum guaranteed quantity and aid per tonne for artificially dried fodder.

4. The Union needs to find ways of making the growing of oil crops for biofuel purposes more attractive. Apart from its impact on the greenhouse gas effect, each tonne of biofuel produced gives as a by-product two tonnes of oilcake (sunflower or rape).

5. As part of environmental measures and in order to curb the trend towards single cereal crop farming in some regions, incentives for diversified rotation, more open than the current agri-environmental measure for sunflowers, should be introduced.

6. Finally, the Community must provide a safety net for European producers of oilseeds and protein crops in the form of a price guarantee comparable to that granted to American soya producers.

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Council is aware of the very great importance of increasing production of feed proteins both in order to respond to the recent suspension of the use of animal meal and ensure the regular supply of feedingstuffs for farm animals and in order to limit recourse to imports and exposure to genetically modified organisms.

In its conclusions of December 2000 on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) the Council took note of the statements by the Commission concerning the production of protein-rich plants and called upon it speedily to analyse the issue in greater detail and to draw conclusions for the policy currently being pursued in this sector and for set-aside, including any appropriate proposals.

The Council will not fail to give the highest priority to the examination of those proposals as soon as it receives them
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3843/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Iron foundry coke dumping by the People's Republic of China

Decision 1238/2000/ECSC(1) provisionally established PRC dumping of coke 80+ with a dumping margin in excess of 60 %, with price undercutting of 29,5 % resulting directly in a 9,9 % loss of Community Industry market share. This Decision, if made definitive, would a) only result in an insignificant increase in cost of production for Community users of coke 80+, while b) partially remedying the injury suffered by the Community Industry.

Can the Commission confirm that if the provisional findings are confirmed at the definitive stage it intends to impose definitive anti-dumping measures?

Is the Commission aware that failure to adopt definitive measures will likely result in the permanent closure of some or all of the five SME private coke 80+ producers, all established in areas of high unemployment, and consequentially put at risk up to 1 600 direct jobs across the European Union, including Wales?

Does the Commission regard the PRC's use of child labour and its failure to apply environmental protection standards in any way approaching those of the EU in the production of coke 80+ as an unfair economic advantage in international trade?

(1) OJ L 141, 15.6.2000, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer which the Commission gave to oral question H-868/00 asked by Mrs Riis-Jørgensen at question time during the December 2000 session(1).

In the light of the incontrovertible results of the inquiry into the existence of such dumping and the injury to the Community industry, and of the conclusions drawn, namely, that the impact of the anti-dumping measures on end-users would be limited, the Commission decided on 14 December 2000 to impose definitive anti-dumping measures.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4158/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in the conclusion of mobile telephone subscriptions

People, such as Members of the European Parliament, who work a few days a week in EU Member States other than the country in which they live, are unable to take out a subscription for a mobile telephone in some EU Member States, Belgium for instance, because they do not have a Belgian identity card or lease.

1. Does the Commission not agree that this is an infringement of the free movement of persons, goods and services enshrined in the EU Treaty?

2. Does the Commission not consider that any proof of identity with an indication of an address and bank or giro account in an EU Member State should be sufficient to allow a mobile telephone operator to conclude a contract?

3. What measures will the Commission take to stop this abuse and thus promote full freedom of movement in the EU in this sphere?

4. There is also one mobile operator in Belgium that first demands a guarantee and then does not allow customers to make calls with the EU and not just in Belgium until after three monthly bills have been paid:

(a) does the Commission consider that a mobile operator can be justified in imposing restrictions on customers with standard subscriptions with regard to mobile calls within the EU? If not, on what Treaty provisions or directives does the Commission base its opinion?

(b) what measures can the Commission take to remove restrictions of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission takes note of the problem that persons from Member States who work a few days a week in other Member States are unable to take out a subscription for a mobile telephone in some of these Member States, for example Belgium, simply because they do not have a Belgian identify card or a lease.

The Commission will examine these questions with a view to establishing whether this is a commercial practice of the mobile telephone operators concerned, or whether this results from national legislation in the Member States concerned, as well to the reasons motivating this practice. This will allow the Commission to make a legal assessment of the issues raised by the Honourable Member and the scope of action to be undertaken by the Commission.

As soon as the Commission has carried out this analysis, it will provide a more detailed answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4155/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Marketing of smelt, implementation of EU hygiene regulation

Under the EU hygiene regulation, smelt more than 15 cm in length may only be sold gutted. This has caused sales of this small relative of salmon to come to a virtual standstill, as prices for gutted smelt are so high because of the labour costs involved that the product is virtually unsaleable on the market.

1. Is the Commission aware that smelt is a national dish on the coast and that basically everyone therefore knows that the fish have to be gutted and salted before being eaten?

2. Is the Commission aware of the fact that in German ports, as a result of the strict interpretation of the provisions, smelt have become virtually unsaleable and the livelihoods of specialised fishermen are consequently threatened?

3. Is the Commission aware of the fact that the regulation is being implemented less strictly in other European ports? What is its view of the resulting distortion of competition?

4. Are there proposals to preserve the livelihoods of the fishing businesses and downstream distribution chains affected?

5. Are there proposals to compensate the fishing businesses and downstream distribution chains affected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The main provision concerning gutting of fish in Community legislation is contained in Council Directive 91/493/EEC(1). Article 3.2 of this Directive requires Where gutting is possible from a technical and commercial viewpoint, it must be carried out as quickly as possible after the products have been caught or landed.

The requirements referred to by the Honourable Member are not contained in Community legislation.

(1) Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3298/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council. Tobacco sponsorship of Formula One.



Official Journal 163 E , 06/06/2001 P. 0083 - 0083



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3298/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council (25 October 2000) Subject: Tobacco sponsorship of Formula One In view of the payment of GBP 1 million to the British Labour Party prior to the last UK general election by Mr Bernard Ecclestone, the organiser of Formula One racing which is sponsored by tobacco manufacturers, and in view of allegations that tobacco interests may have made similar donations to the CDU in Germany, will the Council initiate an inquiry into the influence on political decision-taking across the European Union of tobacco manufacturers seeking to support the continued promotion of tobacco products? Reply (12 February 2001) The Council is fully conscious of the great importance of, and public interest in, the issue of tobacco promotion. We note, however, that your examples relate to the funding of national political parties. We are obliged to emphasise that the funding of national political parties is strictly a matter for the Member States. The Council has no competence in this area.