ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Liberalisation of the sale of periodicals and newspapers

On 12 January the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved draft law No 3911 on new rules on sales points for newspapers and periodicals which provides for an experiment with new ways of selling newspapers, which will be available at sales points other than authorised shops such as tobacconists, petrol stations, bars, supermarkets and bookshops.

Even shops selling articles in a specific sector (e.g. fishing tackle) will be able to sell magazines related to their sector. The law also provides that shops participating in the experiment will be able to continue to sell newspapers and periodicals afterwards. This has caused a rebellion among authorised shopowners following a campaign organised by the weekly "Il Borghese".

The law, which has still to be approved by the Senate, is aimed at definitive liberalisation, without any rules or regulations. If enforced, such liberalisation could cause serious economic damage to the owners of authorised shops (kiosks) which are currently subject to strict rules governing opening hours and holidays.

The Commission:

1. Does it not think that sudden unregulated liberalisation could cause such economic harm to the owners of authorised shops as to bring about closure and thus a loss of jobs?

2. What is its general reaction?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

The Commission thanks the honourable Member for bringing to its attention this new law being prepared by the Italian Parliament. According to the information provided by the honourable Member, the new regulations seeking to change the conditions of sale of newspapers and periodicals is part of a harmonisation approach designed to facilitate arrangements for such activities. By virtue of this, the purpose of the new bill does not seem likely to prompt doubts concerning its compatibility with the principles of the operation of the internal market, and in particular the freedom of establishment.

In any case, it is not for the Commission to comment on the assessment, undertaken by the authorities of the Member State, of the economic effects of a new regulatory measure on operators already established in the country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/99

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Subject: Organisation of the European Day of Disabled People by private consultants

Does the European Commission accept that the organisation of this event by profit-making public relations consultants was a grave error? Will the Commission explain how a consultancy who began their presentation "We are not experts on disability" came to be selected? Will the Commission apologise that transport for mobility-impaired persons was chaotic on the day of the event, and that reimbursement of travel expenses to unemployed disabled citizens such as Mr W. Derek-Main of Euro-Ataxia has not occurred eight weeks after the event? At the same time, why had the company not supplied even the attendance list to the Commission itself, as had been promised? Will the Commission now ensure, in line with Parliament's wishes, that future European Days are organised by disabled people themselves under the auspices of the European Disability Forum, sub-contracting to public relations companies for specialist assistance in this field should this be required?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

Thanks to unprecedented TV and newspaper coverage, the organisation of the European Day of Disabled People in 1998 achieved its stated objective, namely to increase public awareness about the rights of disabled people. All this was possible thanks to the expertise of a specialist communications and public relations agency. The Commission was of course very concerned to make sure the content of the Day, which aims to celebrate the rights of disabled people, was decided in agreement with disabled people or their representatives. To this end, the European Disability Forum was closely involved in deciding upon all the initiatives organised for the Day.

Concerning the case of the individual mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission can confirm that his travel expenses were reimbursed on 21 January 1999 by the above-mentioned agency. The Commission regrets all the problems encountered on the day of the event. The attendance list, which was supplied to all participants on the day itself, will be transmitted direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns to enlist the full support of disabled people themselves through their representatives. To this end, it intends to make sure that all initiatives organised for future European Days of Disabled People are organised under the auspices of the European Disability Forum. There have already been several preliminary contacts with the Forum for the 1999 European Day of Disabled People. The Forum will be fully and effectively involved in all the decisions surrounding the organisation of the 1999 Day.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0798/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Screening in the field of justice and home affairs

To prepare for the accession of the candidate countries, screening in the field of justice and home affairs has now begun. The screening work should, I gather, be completed by the end of March. To simplify its work, the Task Force on Enlargement has divided the acquis into nine chapters: asylum policy, external borders, immigration, combatting organised crime, combatting drugs, combatting terrorism, police cooperation, customs cooperation and cooperation in the field of justice (civil and criminal law). In this connection the Commission has been asked to submit an overall report on the results of screening when the negotiations have finished at the end of March.

1. Will it be possible to submit this report, and if so, when?

2. If not, what arguments are there against submitting this data?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The Commission confirms that the screening of the acquis under chapter 24: Co-operation in the fields of Justice and home affairs of the accession negotiations was completed by the end of March 1999 with the six applicant countries, with which these negotiations have been opened. The Commission will inform the Parliament on the results of this screening in meetings with interested parliamentary committees as usual.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Administrative penalties in matters relating to taxation

Legislative Decree No 472/97 lays down provisions governing administrative penalties in matters relating to taxation.

Some of these provisions stipulate that a natural person can be held liable for the payment of penalties incurred for violations connected with the activity of a legal person.

Under the new system of penalties in force since 1 April 1998, penalties are imposed on a natural person involved in committing a tax violation regardless of the fact that he may have been acting in his capacity as an administrator or company employee.

The principle that administrators and/or employees should be held liable in such matters is not applied in any other EU Member State.

Will the Commission examine whether this procedure is in compliance with the European legislation in force in this area?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

Owing to the lack of Community-level harmonisation of tax penalties, Member States are free to lay down the arrangements for imposing such penalties on taxpayers, provided that the general principles enshrined in the EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, are complied with.

Since Articles 5 and 11 of Legislative Decree No 472/97 of 18 December 1997 do not seem to contain any discriminatory measures, they may, under Community law, make provision for tax penalties to be imposed on the administrators or employees of legal persons by virtue of the activities in which they engage on behalf of the legal person concerned.

The Commission has no plans to present a proposal for harmonising tax penalties within the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0234/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Protection of the Macchia Tonda wildlife sanctuary (Rome)

Is the Commission aware that the Macchia Tonda natural wildlife sanctuary in the Province of Rome might be destroyed as a result of the Italian Government's plans to put an end to the army's use of land in the San Severa area, which currently ensures the sanctuary's survival.

What action does it intend to take to protect the environment in one of the areas of the Latium coastline where pollution levels are still extremely low?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 1999)

The site of Macchiatonda has been designated by the Italian authorities as a special protection area for the protection of birds according to Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1). The area has also been proposed as a site of Community importance for the protection of wild fauna and flora according to Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2).

The site is therefore fully covered by Community nature conservation legislation.

Finally, the site is also protected by the regional law no 54 of 23 July 1983 as a regional reserve.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/99

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Second report on the application in Member States of Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992

Why was the Commission so late in publishing, on 22 December 1998, the second report on the application in Member States of Directive 92/3/Euratom(1) of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (COM(98) 778 final), which only covers 1994-1995? What steps is it taking to make sure the report is published in a more timely fashion in future?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1999)

As stated in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-371/98(2), the complete data were not received from Member States until mid-1997. The subsequent delay in compiling the report was due to competing obligations.

The Commission has started preparing the third report which will cover the years 1996-1997, to be published before the end of 1999, with the support of the advisory committee established by Article 19 of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.

(2) OJ C 304, 20.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Torture in Zimbabwe

Is the Commission aware that two journalists on the "Zimbabwe Standard" have been detained and tortured by the military police?

Can the Commission confirm that on 29 January the EU made approaches to acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Shamuyari?

Does the Commission know the outcome of this affair?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1999)

The Commission is aware of the arrest and torture, by the Zimbabwe military, of two journalists of the weekly newspaper "The Standard", and can confirm that a joint demarche of the Union, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Norway took place on 29 January 1999 to acting Foreign affairs minister Shamayarira. The Commission participated in this demarche.

In a television interview of 20 February 1999, President Mugabe condoned the behaviour by explaining that the military had acted in defence of Zimbabwe's national interest. He also criticized the independent press and some sectors of civil society. In reaction, Member States and the Commission summoned Zimbabwean ambassadors in European capitals on 24 February 1999. On that occasion, the Commission reiterated the concerns expressed in the demarche of 29 January 1999, expressed its disappointment over the content of President Mugabe's televised speech and recalled that no official answer to the demarche had been provided.

Foreign Minister Mudenge replied on 5 March 1999 to the Union demarche in a meeting with Union ambassadors and the Commission's head of delegation in Harare. The minister repeated the official position that the military had acted in defence of the country. However, he also emphasized Zimbabwe's commitment to human rights and expressed his conviction that what had happened would remain an "isolated incident". This was, according to the minister, confirmed by the government's full cooperation in court hearings concerning the detention and alleged torture.

The Commission is encouraged by the continued functioning and independence of the Zimbabwean judiciary, but it will follow closely the evolution of the situation. At the initiative of the Commission, the Africa working group of the Council has scheduled a special meeting on Zimbabwe on 29 April 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0065/99

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Elections in the Central African Republic

On 22 November and 13 December 1998, general elections were held in the Central African Republic.

Can the Commission enlarge on the scant information which has so far been released concerning these elections, and, at the same time, explain the state of relations between that country and the EU, especially in the context of cooperation and under the current Lomé Convention?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Voters in two rounds of parliamentary elections on 22 November and 13 December 1998 elected a total of 109 representatives, with the opposition gaining an overall majority. Opposition parties won 55 of the seats, against the 51 taken by the presidential movement (MPLC, PLD and UPR).

The election passed off peacefully, with backing from the international community. The Commission contributed a total of [fmxeuro]520 000 to finance the electoral process, some [fmxeuro]120 000 of which was used to pay for a team of observers selected and recruited by the Commission. The work of the international observers was coordinated by the UN Mission in the Central African Republic, Minurca, and the three teams (from the UN, the Community and the French-speaking countries) agreed that the small number of irregularities detected during polling were not serious enough to invalidate the results.

As presidential elections are due to take place by December this year the government has asked the UN to extend Minurca's mandate till then in order to minimise the risk of further armed conflict and get the international community's sanction for this further electoral process.

The Community's cooperation with the Central African Republic dates back to the beginning of its development activities and has continued under a series of conventions. The focus has been on the classic areas of rural development, the improvement of local living standards and the development of economic and social infrastructure. The Community is currently the country's major donor.

The [fmxeuro]75 million National Indicative Programme (NIP) budget under the seventh European Development Fund (EDF) is fully committed and 90 % paid out, mainly for transport and health projects and measures to back up or extend programmes financed under the sixth EDF.

Under the second financial protocol to the fourth Lomé convention the Central African Republic was allocated [fmxeuro]102 million for its NIP and a decision was taken to concentrate some 80 % of the money on the transport sector. The remainder of the available resources will go to the health sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0788/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Commission criticism of the Medicines Control Agency (UK)

The Commission has reportedly criticised the MCA, following a complaint from a section of UK industry, for its perceived failure adequately to enforce medicines legislation in "borderline" areas of product classification between foods, cosmetics, medical devices and medicinal products. The UK has now brought forward new legislative proposals in this area.

1. What was the precise nature of the Commission's criticism of the MCA?

2. In the Commission's view, will the proposed UK legislation answer these criticisms?

3. Is the Commission satisfied that the new proposals will not unduly restrict the availability of certain products in the UK and thus disrupt the proper functioning of the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

According to Article 1 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(1), any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals shall be regarded as a medicinal product. Likewise, any substance or combination of substances which may be administered to human beings or animals with a view to making a medicinal diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions, has to be considered a medicinal product. As a matter of general principle, ready-prepared medicinal products may only be placed on the market of a Member State if the quality, safety and efficacy has been proven in a marketing authorisation procedure.

These basic provisions should have been implemented by Member States in their national legislation for many years. In the context of a complaint on a specific group of products, the Commission was, however, made aware that British law did not consistently implement the above rules with regard to all products (particularly certain "health products") on the British market. The Commission, in its function as a guardian of Community law, was therefore obliged to ask the United Kingdom to align its national legislation regarding the classification of medicinal products with the provisions of Community law.

The British authorities have indicated that they intend to achieve the aim of full consistency with Community law by the swift adoption of proposed new regulations for processing the classification of medicinal products. The Commission expects that this aim will be achieved by the adoption of these new regulations and hopes that the full implementation of Community pharmaceutical legislation in the United Kingdom will contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market.

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Special US Government aid for American farmers

The American Government is supporting US farmers by granting them "special aid" to cushion them from the fall in the prices of agricultural products on the world market.

The EU, on the other hand, is engaged in an unprecedented attempt to cut agricultural spending in the Community budget, mainly by cutting subsidies for EU farmers, thereby condemning low-income farmers in southern Europe in particular to enormous losses of income.

Does the Commission consider that the provision of "special aid" by the US Government to American farmers is compatible with the rules of the World Trade Organization, and how does it intend to react to prevent a further erosion of the competitiveness and incomes of European farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

Members of the World trade organisation (WTO) have undertaken to reduce domestic support in accordance with quantified commitments. However, subsidies complying with specific criteria laid down in the Agreement on agriculture (so-called "green" and "blue" box measures) are not subject to this reduction commitment. The United States measures cited by the Honourable Member need to be notified to the World trade organisation, which will ensure a thorough examination in the light of their nature and the United States support reduction commitment.

In the Community, the present agricultural market organisations offer reasonable opportunities to react to developments in the world market. For the future, the Agenda 2000 proposal constitutes a comprehensive approach in order to increase competitiveness internally and externally in order to ensure that Community producers take full advantage of market developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0129/99

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(3 February 1999)

Subject: Cost of introducing the euro

1. Is the Council aware that, following the introduction of the euro, banks are charging their customers Fl 5 per transaction when they withdraw money at cashpoints abroad?

2. Is it also aware that banks are charging their customers Fl 0,50 per transaction when they withdraw money at cashpoints in their own country?

3. Does it realise that, in particular owing to the Fl 5 charge abroad, bank customers are being forced to withdraw larger amounts in order to cut costs, as the charge for withdrawing Fl 500 once is Fl 5, whilst the charge for withdrawing Fl 100 five times is Fl 25?

4. Does it agree that this state of affairs is not conducive to ensuring the safety of members of the public, given that they withdraw larger amounts abroad in order to cut costs?

5. Is it prepared, in view of the uniformity of the charges made by the banks, to investigate whether the banks have formed a cartel or are abusing a monopoly?

6. If so, what action will it take to remedy this situation?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-4027/98 and E-0129/99

(29 March 1999)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian may be aware, on 23 April 1998 the Commission adopted a recommendation addressed to Member States and to banks and their associations concerning banking charges for conversion to the euro.

In this recommendation the Commission considered that banks are not legally entitled to charge:

- for the conversion of incoming payments denominated in the euro unit or in the national currency unit during the transitional period,

- for the conversion of accounts from the national currency unit to the euro unit at the end of the transitional period,

- a different fee for services denominated in the euro unit from that charged for otherwise identical services denominated in the national currency unit.

For other transactions banks are in principle entitled, as for other services they provide, to levy a charge as long as they respect the rules of the Treaty and notably its competition rules.

Ad point 5 and 6: According to Article 89 of the Treaty, it is for the Commission to ensure compliance with the principles of free competition enshrined in the Treaty and notably its Articles 85 and 86 (prohibition of agreements or concerted practices restricting or distorting competition and of abuses of dominant positions).