ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2605/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds 2000-2005/7 Objective 1, Merseyside

With the approval of the British Government a bid for the next Merseyside Objective 1 programme has been submitted to the Commission which includes a financial table indicating that the programme will be supported by equal contributions from EU grants and matching public funding.

1. Is it the Commission's understanding that, by giving its approval to the bid, the British Government has indicated that it intends to ensure that matching funding from within Britain is provided on at least a pound for pound basis with the European Union?

2. What sanctions would be open to the Commission were it to become evident that the British Government did not intend to provide matching funding on this basis?

3. Have such sanctions been applied to any Member State in past years?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

1. The financial schedule in the draft single programming document (SPD) for the region of Merseyside, as submitted by the United Kingdom authorities for the period 2000-2006, cites a total volume of EUR 3 297,9 million broken down as follows:

>TABLE>

If this schedule remains unchanged in the final version of the SPD, the UK Government will be committing itself to financing the public-sector part of the plan on a pound-for-pound basis with the Community's Structural Funds.

2. The Community contribution will depend directly on the expenditure declared by the UK authorities. If the financial commitment originally made is not forthcoming, an automatic penalty is built in since the Community contribution is based on this declared expenditure in accordance with the relative shares laid down in the financial schedule.

3. This is the same mechanism as applies to all other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2772/99

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Dumping of BSE contaminated waste by-products

I have received reports that a review of the proposed Animal Waste Directive 90/667(1) could allow the dumping of BSE contaminated waste by-products in landfill sites in Ireland. Is EU legislation authorising this landfilling, and if that is the case what studies have been carried out to prove that this does not pose any risk. Is there any specific regulation on the handling of BSE contaminated waste (such as classification as hazardous substance)?

(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE)(1) and Commission Decision 97/272/EC of 23 April 1998 on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC(2) allow, by way of derogation from the general rules, specified risk material and animals which have died of TSE to be buried without prior treatment in accordance with specific conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin and amending Directive 90/425/EEC. In particular, according to this Article, the authorities of the Member States may, where necessary, decide that such animal waste must be disposed of by burial.

Following the international scientific conference on animal meal and the public consultation on meat-and-bone meal launched by the Commission in 1997 and in the light of the new scientific opinions recently adopted by the scientific steering committee, a draft proposal establishing new rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste has been prepared in the form of a working document. This working document takes account of the various options for the disposal of animal waste including from animals in which BSE is suspected or confirmed. On the basis of this working document, the submission of a proposal to the Council and to the Parliament is scheduled by June 2000.

(1) OJ L 216, 8.8.1997, as last amended by Council Decision 1999/881/EC, OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99

by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations

The WTO Millennium Round is scheduled to include negotiations on further liberalisation in the agricultural sector. Further liberalisation is appropriate, however, only if it helps to increase the prosperity of farmers and consumers.

1. Has there already been an official evaluation by the WTO and/or the Commission of the impact that the Agreement on Agriculture reached during the GATT Uruguay Round has had on prices and incomes in the EU, the USA and the rest of the world (evaluations up to and including 1999)?

2. How does the Commission evaluate the impacts of the GATT Uruguay Round? I would appreciate an evaluation not only of the two exceptional years 1995 and 1996 but for the whole period from 1995 until 1999. I would similarly appreciate it if the assessment focused predominantly on quantities and price trends in the markets rather than simply on the development of world trade in value terms.

3. Has liberalisation actually produced benefits for the consumer?

4. Have food prices fallen, and to what extent?

5. Has food safety and quality improved as a result of the opening up of markets and the SPS agreement?

6. What view should be taken in this context of the WTO panel that monitors the prohibition of imports of beef produced with the aid of growth hormones?

7. What is the relationship between the expansion of world trade and the general trend in incomes in the EU and other WTO member countries, and how is any rise in incomes distributed among the population?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Labelling of food

1. Can the Commission clarify the logic which allows food produced in country A but packed in country B to be labelled as being of origin from country B?

2. Can the Commission indicate the schemes for the funding of agricultural products in which the UK does not participate?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 1999)

The provisions relating to the labelling of foodstuffs, as enacted by Directive 79/0112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(1) as last amended by Directive 97/0004/EC(2), do not allow for the possibility suggested by the first question of the Honourable Member.

The Commission would be grateful if the Honourable Member would provide more specific information on the case to which he refers.

With regard to the second question posed by the Honourable Member concerning the Guarantee Section (Markets) of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), these measures generally give beneficiaries the right, in certain conditions, to receive the sums indicated in the regulations governing the common agricultural policy (CAP). These regulations are applicable in each Member State and each Member State is obliged to apply them. On the other hand, for certain specific schemes financed by the EAGGF-Guarantee, application is optional. For example, the United Kingdom does not grant aid for the consumption of butter to persons receiving social assistance (Council Regulation (EEC) 2990/82 of 9 November 1982 on the sale of butter at reduced prices to persons receiving social assistance(3)), a scheme only applied in Ireland. Furthermore, since 1999, the United Kingdom does not distribute agricultural products to underprivileged persons in the Community (Council Regulation (EEC) 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community(4)).

A list of agricultural mechanisms for which the United Kingdom did not declare expenses in the course of the 1998 financial year is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the General Secretariat of the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3) OJ L 314, 10.11.1982.

(4) OJ L 352, 15.12.1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1652/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Pollution of the waters in regional canal 66

Regional canal 66 crosses the prefectures of Imathia and Pella, taking in the waters of small local rivers before flowing into the Aliakmon and downstream into the Thermaic Gulf. Industrial waste is unlawfully discharged into canal 66 throughout the region. Samples and measurements taken at various points along the canal show that it is impossible for any form of life to exist in it, particularly during the summer months.

Having regard to:

- the fact that some industrial plants in the region are operating without biological waste treatment facilities, while others have such facilities but do not use or underuse them, thereby disposing of industrial waste in breach of Community legislation,

- the petitions submitted by the mayors of Irinoupoli Ap. Pavlos and Anthemia and the complaints and strong protests over the last ten years from the inhabitants of the villages in the vicinity of the canal and from local environment organisations,

- the damage to the environment and public health (poisoning, stench, dead fish washed up through lack of oxygen),

- the infringement of Community directives concerning waste, protection of ground water, the quality of drinking water and prevention of marine pollution.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether it will ask the Greek authorities to guarantee a permanent halt to sewage pollution of canal 66,

2. whether, if requested, it will finance a management plan in the area concerned in order to restore the severely disrupted ecological balance along the entire length of the canal bed, and

3. what measures it will take, should it identify breaches of Community environment legislation, to enforce correct implementation of its provisions?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1999)

The Commission had not been informed of the pollution of the water in regional canal 66 and would like to thank the honourable Member for the information received. The Commission will ask the Greek authorities for information on the operation of the existing treatment works, on the collection system for

waste water and for waste from the companies in that region, and on the preparation of programmes setting qualitative targets for the Aliakmona River. The Commission will decide what further work needs to be done on this matter once the Greek authorities have replied.

In principle an integrated water management plan in the area referred to may, in principle, be eligible as part of the activities to be jointly financed by Community support framework (CSF) III in central Macedonia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1929/99

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: The treatment of Romanies in the Czech Republic

Is the Commission aware that the council of the Czech town Usti Nad Labem is planning to build a wall in a residential area to separate the part where Romanies live from the part where non-Romanies live?

Does the Commission consider this contrary to the Copenhagen criteria, which must be met by applicant countries?

If so, what action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

The Commission is aware of the decision taken on 15 September 1999 by the local council of Usti nad Labem to build a ceramic fence to separate Roma and non-Roma residents in a street of this city. The wall was built on 13 October 1999 despite opposition of the Czech government and cancellation of the resolution of the local authorities voted by the Chamber of Deputies on the same day.

On 18 October 1999, the Czech government approved a resolution nominating a government representative, Mr Pavel Zarecky, Deputy minister of the Interior, to negotiate and find a viable solution with the local authorities, as requested by the Chamber of Deputies. In this resolution, the Czech government also called on the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Legislative Council, Mr Pavel Rychetsky, to discuss the progress of the government with representatives of the Roma community and to inform the diplomatic missions of the states that have contacted the government of the Czech Republic on this issue. The Czech government has expressed its intention to resolve this issue before the Helsinki European Council in December 1999.

Following the building of the wall, the Commission expressed immediately its concern about the situation prevailing in Usti nad Labem and is monitoring the situation closely. It maintains a continuous dialogue on this issue with the Czech authorities and supports the Czech Republic in all its efforts towards a solution conforming with the necessary respect for the Roma minority, and its protection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/99

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Measures to support the elderly

The budget items designed to support the elderly for 1996 Item B3-4104 and 1997 were blocked owing to the case brought before the Court of Justice by the United Kingdom on the grounds of a lack of legal basis.

Can the Commission outline the current situation with regard to the above items in support of the elderly, and does it see any possibility of these two lines corresponding to 1996 and 1997 being unblocked?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1999)

An inter-institutional agreement on legal bases and implementation of the budget was reached on 17 July 1998 between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This stated that using funds from the Community budget required a basic instrument (secondary legislation providing a foundation in law for Community action and for incurring the expenditure entered in the budget), with only certain specified exceptions. In the light of this inter-institutional agreement, the United Kingdom did not feel it necessary to continue with case C-239/96 challenging the Commission's call for applications for grants from budget line B3-4104 and the case was withdrawn.

One exception allowed by the inter-institutional agreement is for funding for preparatory measures intended to prepare the way for proposals for the adoption of future Community action. On this basis, actions relating to older people were supported in 1998 by budget line B3-4116 (co-operation with

non-governmental organisations and associations formed by the socially excluded and the elderly), in the form of preparatory measures for Community action on the basis of Article 137 of the EC-Treaty (ex Article 118) regarding combating social exclusion. A first call for proposals for preparatory actions was issued in October 1998, under which 40 projects were funded.

In the 1999 budget, budget line B3-4104 was incorporated into budget line B3-4112 (preparatory measures combating and preventing social exclusion). Further calls were issued in June 1999 under this line addressing exclusion of older people as well as all other types of exclusion, and the Commission is currently evaluating the proposals received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1624/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: EU funding for a chicken farm in Vseruby (Czech Republic)

A German consortium is planning to build a chicken farm for 1,2 million laying hens and 200 000 chickens on the Bavarian-Czech border. There are considerable objections from the local population because of the possibility of pathogens being carried by the wind.

Will the chicken farm in Vseruby be financed directly or indirectly by European funding (e.g. under PHARE)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 1999)

The Commission can confirm that the poultry farm to which the Honourable Member refers does not receive Phare support. Neither is the Commission aware of any other Community funds being used for this purpose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1498/99

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Groups hiring out mercenaries

There have recently been increasingly frequent reports of groups hiring out mercenaries, usually from Europe and mainly to Africa, but also to other theatres of war.

1. Is the Commission aware of these activities?

2. Does the Commission see action to combat such groups as a task to be performed at Union level?

3. Has the Commission already taken steps to prevent such machinations? If so, what steps? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1999)

The Commission is aware of reports of groups hiring out mercenaries to countries in Africa and to other theatres of war and is concerned about these developments. The Commission is of the view that the international community should consider effective measures in response to this phenomenon and notes with interest the work undertaken by the United Nations in this field.

The Commission considers that where such groups are established in Member States or hire nationals of Member States, responsibility for policy vis-à-vis their actions, which might include combating them, lies primarily with the authorities of the Member States concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1788/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Lazio Football Club and travel agency agreement

Is the Commission aware of press reports that indicate that Lazio Football Club have signed a three-year agreement with a travel agency to cover transport to and tickets for away games in the Champions' League, with the result that, in order to obtain tickets, fans have to pay twice the cost of travelling independently to the games?

In the light of earlier answers to similar questions where the Commission indicated that such an arrangement would be in breach of European Union law and constitute an abuse of a dominant position, will the Commission investigate and, if the reports are true, inform Lazio that such breaches of law must immediately cease?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether it considers a reported agreement between Lazio Football Club and a travel agent, according to which the former supplies to the latter 70 % of all entry tickets allocated to the club for each of its Champions' League away-leg matches, to constitute an abuse of a dominant position contrary to European law.

Assuming the press reports as referred to by the Honourable Member are accurate, it appears that the effect of the agreement in question is to reserve a significant proportion of away-leg entry tickets to a single travel agent for onward sale to the general public, thereby preventing other travel agents from selling tickets to Lazio supporters for the matches in question. Furthermore, it is likely that in respect of ticket sales by the appointed travel agent, Lazio supporters will be obliged to purchase match tickets as part of a package of services, including the provision of travel and accommodation arrangements as well.

Insofar as the application of European competition rules to the agreement is concerned, those rules do not apply unless the agreement could have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States. It would appear that tickets allocated to Lazio Football Club for entry to its away-leg Champions' League football matches are likely to be wanted exclusively by Italian supporters. As such, it can be assumed that the demand for those tickets is of a national, regional or even local nature. It follows therefore that any restrictive effects of the agreement in question are likely to be confined principally, if not entirely, to travel agents and other distributors of tickets active on the Italian market.

The Commission considers therefore that the agreement in question could have little or no effect on trade between Member States and that as such European competition rules are not applicable.

Agreements or practices with allegedly restrictive effects on a purely national scale may, however, be assessed by a Member State's national competition authority. The Honourable Member may therefore wish to consider raising this matter with the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato in Italy (Via Liguria 26, I-00187 Roma).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/99

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Tax on the employment of foreign nationals

Is the Commission aware that in the world of German theatre, a tax on the employment of foreign nationals appears to be paid at a rate of 20 %. Can the Commission confirm that this is the case and does it accept that such practice is therefore discriminatory against other EU citizens within the Federal Republic of Germany?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 1999)

Non-resident artists are subject to German income tax on their professional income earned in Germany irrespective of whether or not they are also subject to income tax in their Member States of residence (the latter must of course take into account the tax paid in Germany). In order to ensure the payment of tax at all and to facilitate its collection, organisers are bound, by virtue of the (German) Income Tax Act 1997, lastly modified by the Tax Relief Act 1999/2000/2002 of 24 March 1999, to withhold from the fees agreed with non-resident artists, as well as from the related performance and ancillary costs, income tax at a rate of 25 % (15 % before 1996), topped up by the solidarity complement tax as well as by VAT.

Such tax deduction corresponds to a taxable profit, at the marginal top rate of at present 53 %, of less than 50 % of the gross fees. In other words, the system assumes deductible expenses of more than 50 %, which appears not to be unrealistically low. Moreover, a reduction of the tax to be withheld can be granted on request to the fiscal authorities, if it is shown that the tax finally to be paid would be lower (paragraph 50a Income Tax Act). This will in particular apply, if expenses are incurred which would normally not be part of the tax base. In any event, an individual tax assessment under the progressive tax rate can be obtained by introducing a tax return. Overpaid taxes will then be reimbursed. However, the 25 % tax withheld is considered to be final, if no action is taken by the non-resident artist.

German artists are subject to the same tax, but they always pay it at their individual tax rate according to their income situation as declared in their tax return.

The different methods of tax collection are not considered to be discriminatory, because they reflect the different situation of non-resident and resident artists and do not appear to be disproportionate.