ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1414/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Fiscal State aids

In a statement on 23 February 2000 (IP/00/182) Commissioner Mario Monti said that he had instructed the Commission's Competition Department to examine all the relevant cases of fiscal State aids in business taxation, so as to allow the Commission to comply fully and promptly with its own institutional obligations, also on the basis of the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation of 11 November 1998.

1. Could the Commission please explain what action it has taken so far to examine relevant cases of fiscal State aids in business taxation?

2. Has the Commission identified any cases where fiscal State aids have been put into effect in breach of the State aid rules of the Community and, if so, what action has the Commission taken?

3. Could the Commission provide a breakdown of the number of cases by Member State?

4. Does the Commission have any plans to amend or update the Communication on the application of the State Aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (SEC(1998) 1800)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

In line with its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Commission investigates and evaluates permanently new and existing State Aid measures, including those granted in the form of fiscal aid, pursuant to Article 88 (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. As part of this permanent task, it has started to also scrutinise all the tax measures that the Code of Conduct Group reported to the Ecofin Council on 29 November 1999.

In this respect the Commission decided on 11 July 2001 to launch aid investigations under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty for 11 corporation tax schemes in 8 Member States and to ask to put an end to existing fiscal advantages, under Article 88.1 of the Treaty, to four Member States. These schemes are no longer justified following the higher degree of integration of member States economies due to the completion of the Single Market, the liberalisation of capital movements and the establishment of economic and monetary union.

The Commission will continue to scrutinise tax systems in all Member States and it cannot be excluded that State aid investigations similar to the present, will have to be opened in future.

The Commission is currently evaluating the experience gained in implementing the Communication on the application of the State Aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation in order to have a basis for the possible up-dating of this notice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Seals

What support has the Commission given to projects concerned with the Mediterranean monk seal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Under the Habitats directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) Member States have to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection in order to ensure a favourable status of conservation of the monk seal (Monachus monachus). Moreover, they must designate sites which will form part of the Natura 2000 ecological network.

The Commission is certainly aware that the Community has particular responsibility for this priority species, in view of the proportion of the natural range which falls within the territory of the Community.

Projects regarding this species may be submitted for Community cofinancing, according to relevant existing rules (a list for some of the projects or studies directly related to the Mediterranean area is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat). Upon the outcomes of these projects, the Commission tries to build new approaches aimed at improving the status of conservation of the species.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1689/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Validity of the tendering procedure for the privatisation of Olympic Airways

Concerning the closing date for the tendering procedure relating to the privatisation of Olympic Airways, for which the closing date was 14 May, the government-appointed consultant has delayed the communication of details regarding the tenders submitted by potential buyers. According to newspaper reports (Eleftherotypia of 19 May 2001 and Kathimerini of 25 May 2001), the tendering arrangements were accompanied by secondary negotiations by which the potential buyers sought to secure certain advantages in exchange for purchasing Olympic Airways, such as contracts to supply the armed forces (with tanks, helicopters and communications equipment) or the purchase under favourable conditions, of portions of the former Helleniko airport.

Will the Commission examine these extremely serious allegations which, if they prove to be true, would constitute an infringement of European Union competition rules?

If this is the case, will it intervene to cancel the tendering procedure and ensure that legal, credible and sustainable solutions to the question of Olympic Airways are found without delay?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission follows closely the developments in the privatisation process. In this context, it has informed the Greek authorities by letter of 26 April 2001 that the tender procedure will have to be examined in the context of the rules of the EC Treaty concerning State aid. Therefore, once a preferred bidder has been identified by the Greek State and a transaction agreed, a notification of the privatisation project should follow without further ado. In accordance with procedural rules on State subsidies, any transaction will have to obtain the Commission's approval on the basis of a complete notification of the arrangements of the sale, including the purchase price and all issues of transferal of rights and obligations.

The Honourable Member will have already learned that the Greek Government has decided to regard the second bidding phase as not successful and has invited all pre-selected parties to submit legally binding and complete bids by 18 June 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1313/01

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Tax on wine in Sweden

The Commission previously urged Sweden to reduce the tax on wine. The Swedish Government intended to comply with this request but, following an agreement between the government and its allied parties in the Swedish Parliament, the tax will apparently not be reduced.

What measures will the Commission take to persuade Sweden to comply with its request to reduce the tax on wine?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it recently sent Sweden a reasoned opinion on certain aspects of Swedish tax law relating to wine and beer which it deems incompatible with the Treaty. The Commission considers that the Swedish tax system establishes discrimination contrary to the Treaty by charging a higher tax on wine than on beer, indirectly protecting beer (a domestic product) from competition from wine (a product from other Member States).

It is now up to Sweden to take the necessary measures to comply with the Commission's reasoned opinion. The Commission reserves the right to use all the means put at its disposal by the Treaty, including referral of the matter to the Court of Justice, to ensure proper application of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/01

by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2001)

Subject: Transnationally abducted children and the case of the Limet / de Brouwer children in Kenya

In 1994, Marie de Brouwer, a Belgian citizen, left Belgium to start a new life in Kenya and separated from her husband and her three children.

The custody of the three children was awarded to the father, Olivier Limet and confirmed by the Brussels Court of Appeal in 1997.

Since 9 August 1998, Mrs de Brouwer, who in the meantime acquired Kenyan citizenship, has refused to return the children to their father and has prevented any contact between the children on the one hand and their father and close relations in Belgium on the other.

The Belgian Courts have issued an international warrant for the arrest of Mrs de Brouwer and an extradition order against her on the grounds of hostage taking. They have also condemned her to a jail sentence.

The Kenyan authorities, through their attorney-general, have issued legal objections to the Belgian Courts' decision and have placed the children under the protection of the Kenyan Court.

Since the summer of 1998, the three children have not seen their father.

Could this case be raised in meetings with Kenyan officials at all levels and the Kenyan authorities be invited to do their utmost to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that every child has the right to maintain direct contact with both parents if separated from one or both?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests. This right is set out in Article 24 paragraph 3 of the Union Charter of Fundamental Rights(1) which is based upon Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child (1989).

It constitutes an expression of the general principle that the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in all decisions affecting him or her. Furthermore, a system of cooperation among authorities for the return of children wrongfully removed has been set up under the Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction (1980). However, Kenya is not Party to this Convention.

The President of the Commission raised the issue of the Limet/de Brouwer children during the visit of President Moi in Brussels in October 1999. However, the Commission has no basis in Community law for pursuing this matter, and can only hope that the responsible authorities in Belgium and in Kenya reach a satisfactory outcome.

(1) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1156/01

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

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Tuna steaks

The European Union promised Mexico, within the Free Trade Area Agreement, that it would investigate the possibility of opening a tuna steak quota with a preferential tariff before 1 September 2001.

1. Does the Commission believe that the opening of a new quota for tuna steaks from Mexico is necessary?

2. What stage have the negotiations reached?

3. Has the Commission carried out an assessment of the impact on the EU's fishing fleet and tuna processing industry of the possible opening of a tuna steak quota with a preferential tariff for Mexico?

4. Has the Commission assessed the impact of this possible quota on the European tuna canning industry and the tuna fleet?

5. Does the Commission not believe that opening a fresh quota for tuna steaks, with a preferential tariff, could have a seriously detrimental effect on the European industry's current position, given the possibility that new tuna steak processing industries will be set up in various Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Under Article 10(5) of Decision No 2/2000 of the EC-Mexico Joint Council(1), the Commission is required to enter into discussions on this subject with the Mexican authorities no later than 1 September 2001. However, given the current arrangements for imports of tuna loins into the Community, which provide, amongst other things, for the existence of an autonomous quota erga omnes, the Commission does not consider it necessary to open a new quota for tuna loins originating in Mexico.

The Commission is aware of the deadlines fixed by the Agreement but it is not at present engaged in negotiations on this subject. Nevertheless the Commission intends to implement the commitments it entered into under the Agreement and in particular under the above Decision.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of the study on the assessment of supply of tuna loins to the Community market, of which it received a copy on 7 January 2000, point 3.6.3 of which deals specifically with Mexico. The Commission does not consider it useful, at this stage, to carry out new studies.

The effects of opening a tariff quota for tuna loins were assessed in the above study, taking into account all possible sources of supply of tuna loins, including Mexico.

Given the current arrangements mentioned in point 1, there should not be any impact on the Community industry.

(1) OJ L 157, 30.6.2000 and OJ L 245, 29.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: The Charter of Fundamental Rights (revealing existing rights or creating new rights)

With reference to Commissioner Vitorino's reply on behalf of the Commission to Written Question P-3997/00(1) in which he stated that 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, does the Commission believe that this is true of all the citizens' rights enumerated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and, if so, can it list the existing legal basis in the Consolidated Treaties for each of the following rights:

- the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of language (ability) (Article 21);

- the right of children to have their views taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity (Article 24);

- the right of workers to conclude collective agreements (Article 28);

- the right to a free placement service (Article 29);

- the right to paid maternity leave (Article 33);

- the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for an offence for which one has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law (Article 50) (especially in view of Article 4.2 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No 11 which specifically permits this in certain cases)?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 212.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the explanations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the document dated 11 October 2000 of the Council of the European Union (reference Charte 4478/00 (Convent 49).

This document is freely accessible on the Council's Internet site dealing with the work of the Convention which drew up the Charter(1). The Commission has sent a copy of this document to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The document, which was prepared at the instigation of the Praesidium of the Convention, is intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter, specifying for each right the source which provided guidance in drawing up the Charter constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, the Treaty on European Union, the Community Treaties, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the Community and by the Council of Europe and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission trusts that the Honourable Member will find in this document a clear response concerning all the rights enumerated by him.

(1) http://ue.eu.int/df/default.asp.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0638/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Funding of text books

1. Please could the Council confirm whether any EU funds have been used to fund the following textbooks:

- Our Arabic Language Third Grade-Fifth Grade Part 2

- Islamic Education Grades 3-9

- Reader and Literary Texts Grades 4-8

- Modern Arab History & Contemporary Problems

- Palestinian National Education Third Grade

- Islamic Culture Grades 5-8

- Geography of the Arab

2. If so, which budget line was used to fund these projects?

3. Will the Council please undertake to ensure that no EU funding is used to fund textbooks which contain anti-Semitic statements?

Examples of such language, included in the above textbooks includes:

In many cases these Jews acted according to their known cunning and deceit and they incite wars Islamic education, 9th grade, p.78.

What can we do to rescue Jerusalem and to liberate it from the thieving enemy? Reader and Literary Texts, 8th grade, p.99.

I learn from this lesson: I believe that Jews are the enemies of the Prophets and the believers. Islamic education, 4th grade, Part one, p.67.

Reply

(30 May 2001)

As a matter of principle the Council deplores the use of educational systems to promote intolerance and prejudice. It would, however, point out that the projects in support of the Palestinian authority are financed by the Commission which has in fact given a joint reply dated 12 December 2000 (to questions P-3612/00, P-3643/00 and E-3652/00) with regard to the funding of the production and distribution of school textbooks in the territory of the Palestinian Authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Physical Agents Directive

Could the Commission confirm whether it does intend to introduce the Physical Agents Directive?

Would the Commission agree that introducing this directive would place unreasonable requirements on farm workers if new limits were placed on vehicle use on farms on health and safety grounds?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/01 and E-0968/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents in December 1992(1). Further to the opinions of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, the Commission submitted an amended proposal in July 1994(2).

The main characteristic of the proposal had been to provide a general framework for all categories of physical agents in order to establish a clear and coherent prevention strategy capable of protecting the health and safety of workers exposed to these agents.

The proposal deals with those physical agents for which there is sufficient scientific evidence for Community action - noise (risks to hearing); vibrations (risks to the hand, arm and whole body); electromagnetic fields and optical radiation (risks to health from induced currents in the body, shock and burn hazards and from absorption of thermal energy).

The Commission's proposal does not limit the use of vehicles on farms nor does it specify emission limit values for machines.

In addition, the socio-economic impact study made by the Commission at the time of proposal does not show any unreasonable burden imposed on farmers when applying the prevention measures specified.

(1) OJ C 77, 18.3.1993.

(2) COM(94) 284 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: European employment policy

The recent changes to the football transfer fees system state that professional football players now have different rights according to their age, with greater compensation being awarded for the transfer of players up to the age of 23.

How can the value of employees in terms of age be reconciled with other European employment legislation? Will it set a precedent for any other employment sectors?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Commission first reminds that the Court of Justice recognised in its Bsoman judgment that the aim of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players is legitimate and can justify an obstacle to the free movement of workers.

According to the general principles set out in the outcome of the discussions between the Commission and International Federation of Football Associations/Union of European Football Associations (FIFA/UEFA) on FIFA regulations on international football transfers, in the case of players aged under 23, a system of training compensation should be put in place to encourage and reward the training efforts of clubs, in particular small clubs.

The sum paid in that situation will specifically compensate for the training provided to young players. As this compensation is applied to a different situation, it cannot be regarded as being discriminatory.

Taking into account that this system aims to meet the specific needs of sport, it is not transposable to other industries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/01

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Development of yacht marinas in Greece

1. Are there regional development or other EU funds available to help build yacht marinas (including the necessary tourism infrastructure and development) in prime - but, in tourism terms, underdeveloped - sailing locations in Greece?

2. If assistance for such investment were available, what conditions would be attached? What conditions would apply to a German investor?

3. Where can information be obtained and applications made?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The part-financing of pleasure port infrastructure (marinas) can be eligible under the Competitiveness operational programme in the Community support framework for Greece for the 2000-2006 programming period.

Investment aid is granted under Greek law No 2601/98 (aid scheme), which lays down the procedures and conditions for granting it. Construction of the infrastructure in question is exclusively part-financed as private investment, with the European Regional Development Fund part-financing only a part of the public expenditure provided under this law. Any proposal from private investors may, after evaluation, be taken into consideration for possible part-financing. The selection of individual projects is a matter for the competent national authorities, not the Commission.

In this respect, more detailed information can be obtained from the Managing authority for the Competitiveness operational programme Semitelou Street 6, Athens.