ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: 1998 Football World Cup Finals

Which European Commission officials were given World Cup tickets at the time of that event, and were those officials involved in assessing the fine subsequently imposed by the Commission on the football authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

No-one involved in the instruction of the case, from the responsible member of the Commission to the rapporteurs of the case in the Competition Directorate general, was given tickets by the comité français d'organisation de la coupe du monde de football 1998 (CFO) or the national football federations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/99

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The elderly in the United Kingdom

While respecting the principle of subsidiarity in operation in the health sector, the Community institutions have a duty to see to it that Member States ensure a high level of quality in the services supplied to their citizens.

From this perspective, I would like to draw the Commission's attention to the accusations, reported in all the Member States' main daily papers, made by a well-known London doctor, who states that in some British hospitals downright involuntary euthanasia is being practised.

From the serious allegations made it would appear that the situation is of the utmost gravity, with elderly people being left to die, deprived of the slightest assistance and even of food, to allow beds to be freed.

In the light of this:

- does the Commission not think that the practices revealed constitute a brutal breach of human rights and that because of this they fall within the Commission's sphere of authority?

- What action does it therefore consider advisable in this particular case?

- Does it not consider it essential to set in motion a thorough investigation in all Member States which would finally throw light upon the actual circumstances in which elderly people who are no longer independent live in European Union countries?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

It is for each Member State to organise their health systems as they wish, and to determine the conditions for entitlement to benefits under those systems. Therefore, although the Commission is not aware of the details of the press coverage cited, there does not seem to be an obligation arising from Community law that would be involved. Therefore it would be more appropriate to contact the United Kingdom authorities directly with any further questions on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination with regard to the right to the guaranteed minimum income in Luxembourg

On 29 July 1999 the then Commissioner Padraig Flynn informed the Luxembourg trade union federation OGBL that he intended to open infringement proceedings against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty on the grounds that the law of 29 April 1999 contained provisions which were incompatible with the right to equal treatment and which appeared to be in breach of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68(1) on freedom of movement for workers, and of Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

The new law of 29 April 1999 reduced but did not abolish the minimum period of residence in Luxembourg required in order to be entitled to the guaranteed minimum income, a condition which places Luxembourg citizens at an advantage over citizens from other Member States resident in Luxembourg.

Have proceedings been opened as announced, and if not, what will the Commission do to ensure that Luxembourg respects the right to freedom of movement and complies with Community legislation in this area?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission decided to issue a reasoned opinion concerning the provisions of Luxembourg law on the entitlement to a guaranteed minimum income which make the granting of this benefit conditional upon a minimum of five years' residence in Luxembourg. In the Commission's view, these provisions are indeed incompatible with the right to equal treatment laid down in Articles 39 and 43 (ex-Articles 48 and 52) of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(1), to which the Honourable member refers.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, pp. 2-12.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Indian leather industry subsidies

Last year I tabled a question (E-3882/99)(1) to the Commission which elicited a response referring me to the Commission's reply to another question of mine (P-3790/98)(2), which had nothing to do with the new question at all.

I would therefore repeat my request: will the Commission send me the list of projects funded by the EU in India helping the Indian leather industry (leather, footwear and fine leather goods), stating the date of approval and the objectives?

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 155.

(2) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 150.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission is not currently financing any projects specifically benefiting the Indian leather industry, nor has it done so in recent years; nor are there any plans for financing such projects.

The Commission regrets the error it made in its answer to written question E-3822/98 by the Honourable Member, referring him to a previous answer to his written question P-3790/98, which included information on aid to the Catalan leather industry (point 4.6).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/99

by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Lethal flooding in the south of France

In November 1999, torrential rain, floods, landslides and broken material swept through four southern French départements, Aude, Hérault, Tarn and the Pyrénées Orientales, causing widespread devastation and more than 30 deaths, destroying roads, railway lines and all public electricity, water and telephone networks. Is the Council prepared immediately to set in motion the budgetary procedure aimed at getting emergency financial aid to the victims of natural disasters? Does it intend to draw this aid from the 1999 budget so as to enable the first of these payments to be made before the end of the year, as was the case with Turkey which received 180 million euros (or more than one billion francs) for the financial year 1999 following the earthquake on 17 August?

Reply

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Council could open a budgetary procedure to release emergency aid appropriations for the victims of natural disasters in the south of France.

A heading entitled Emergency aid to disaster victims in the Community appeared in the budget until the end of the 1997 financial year. As from the preliminary draft 1998 budget it ceased to be proposed because of criticism by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets, which argued that such aid should be granted at national level and not from the Community budget.

As a result, humanitarian aid appropriations in the general budget are solely for third countries. A procedure similar to the aid given to Turkey, which is a third country, cannot therefore be envisaged for France.

In any case, the responsibility for any initiative to commit appropriations allocated in the general budget by the budgetary authority rests with the Commission. It is therefore up to the Commission to see whether people and areas affected by natural disasters, such as that referred to in the question, can be helped by releasing appropriations from other chapters of the budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Irregularities and problems in the allocation and use of financing from Community funds for Katerini General Hospital

On 26 November 1996 the Greek Government's Public Corporation for the Construction of Medical Units (PCCMU) awarded the contract for building the Prefectural General Hospital of Katerini to a particular joint venture, in spite of its inexplicably low tender and various other irregularities in the way the contract awarding process had been carried out. Specifically, the PCCMU decided to award the contract without the approval of the Competition Committee, which had asked why the tender was so low but had never received an answer, and had therefore not given its approval. Long delays in carrying out the work were one of the consequences of the above, resulting in a penal clause amounting to 90 million drachmas being applied to the contracting joint venture. Most bizarrely, however, the contractor did not forfeit the job, as is usual in such circumstances, but was granted an extension of eight months by the PCCMU in which to complete it. Today, however, 33 months after the contract was awarded and just five months away from the deadline for completion, not even the frame is ready and barely 20 % of the total is estimated to have been finished. The Commission's Directorate-General XV, in a warning letter sent on 5 May 1998 to the responsible Greek authorities, expressed reservations about the contract awarding process and fears that the project might not be continued.

Could the Commission say what the precise reasons were that prompted it to send this letter, who it considers to blame for the whole situation and especially the delays, and whether it believes that there are good reasons for the sums allocated for the completion of the work to be definitively forfeited?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has examined this case following a complaint which called into question the legality of the award procedure for this contract. On the basis of the information contained in the complaint, the Commission expressed reservations about the legality of certain parts of the procedure in a letter sent to the Greek authorities, and has requested further information and comments from these authorities. Certain details which cast doubt on the legality of this contract have also appeared in the Greek press. Before concluding its examination, the Commission has, therefore, also attempted to determine the truth of these allegations. The examination of this dossier will be completed shortly.

The fact that there have been delays in the construction of the building is certainly regrettable, but it is not up to the Commission to apportion responsibility.

The Commission would also like to assure the Honourable Member that Community co-financing for carrying out this project will be re-examined once the Commission has concluded its final assessment of the aforementioned complaint.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2722/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Protection of the Iberian wolf

Members of the environmental group Ciconia in Zamora (Spain) have launched a campaign to protest at the auction of hunting rights for three Iberian wolves in the Culebra hills, as allowed by the Castilla y León regional government since 1997. Quite apart from being in breach of the law passed by the Spanish government listing this animal in the Catalogue of Endangered Species, this measure does not resolve the social tension caused by the lack of compensation for harm caused to livestock.

Under Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on habitats, the wolf is classed as a protected species south of the Duero river, and a controlled species to the north of the river. According to experts, the problem caused by the wolf population in Spain (which estimates place at approximately 2000) is one of control, and of perception by different social groups, particularly in rural areas, and first and foremost by herdsmen and livestock breeders.

Will the Commission bring pressure to bear on the Spanish authorities to halt the auction of hunting rights for Iberian wolves, as authorised by the Castilla y León regional government?

Could the Commission, together with the national authorities, put in place an effective information programme for herdsmen and livestock breeders on the importance of conservation measures for wolves, and a system to provide fair and rapid compensation for the damage they cause?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Spanish wolf population in the North of the Duero River is included on the Annex V of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as species whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures.

The Spanish authorities have adopted exceptional management measures for these populations in the North of the Duero River, such as the possibility to be hunted under specific circumstances. These measures are carried out to avoid too much damage to livestock. Article 14 of Directive 92/43/EEC seems to have been respected.

According to information held by the Commission, the Spanish wolf population in the North of the Duero River is increasing.

Spain is the Member State with the biggest wolf population. Action plans including compensation for damage, radio-tracking studies and infrastructure impact studies about the populations are ongoing.

Furthermore, agri-environmental measures specifically tailored to wolf conservation are being implemented in Castilla y León areas such as Sierra de la Culebra.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Anti-xenophobia project

In my home region of Vorarlberg, Austria, a project is being planned under the title: Love, war and adventure: tracing your roots!.

Attitudes towards foreigners in our society are in many ways influenced by fear. A way of countering these feelings is to trace the roots of the local population. The origins of the current inhabitants can be shown by the example of actual families.

The aim of the project is to show the many ways in which former foreigners have contributed to the development of a community or town and to show how the descendants of former immigrants have quite naturally now become indigenous people. Many families have ancestors who were immigrants or relations who emigrated abroad. Knowledge of their own family history should awaken people's understanding and tolerance for today's foreigners.

Has the Commission to date supported any similar projects?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission has already financed a plethora of measures to integrate immigrants and to combat racism and xenophobia, some of which concerned the contribution and the positive role of ethnic minorities in the Union. But it has not supported any projects like the one described by the Honourable Member.

Since ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, Community action in the field of racism has come under the more general framework of implementing the new Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty, which concerns discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. In the context of preparing an action programme in this area, the Commission published calls for proposals in 1999, and will publish more in 2000, with an eye to funding projects in the context of transnational partnerships covering at least two of the types of discrimination mentioned in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which are of interest to the Community and which can significantly contribute to the further development and implementation of Community policy in this field, within the limits set by the available resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/99

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Regeneration of fishing grounds

The European Community seeks to conserve the different species present in fishing grounds through the balanced management of resources. However, in spite of this, some traditional Community fishing grounds are experiencing a decline in the fish population.

Could the Commission order a scientific study into the possibility of regenerating traditional fishing grounds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Rebuilding of fish populations can essentially be achieved through restocking by artificial means or by allowing enough adult fish to spawn in natural conditions following conservation measures.

Restocking by artificial means in the open sea has been generally proved an inefficient method; in a few cases, such as for Baltic salmon, it has induced a risk of extinction for the wild populations.

Studies on the rebuilding of fish populations by conservation measures are common in fisheries science, and are carried out mostly under the request of the Commission. These studies include work carried out by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) and its working groups, study groups, committees, and other subsidiary bodies; work carried out by the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF) and its subsidiary bodies; studies in support of the common fisheries policy carried out under budgetary line B2-1810, and studies made following ad hoc requests on the basis of a special need of scientific information. The results of all these studies are available to the Members of the Parliament upon request.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2553/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: VAT on provision of home care

Will the Commission please specify the rate or rates of VAT currently charged by each Member State on the provision of home care (for those with disabilities, the elderly and so forth)? Do these rates differ according to the type of service provider (i.e. local authorities, private companies for profit, charitable non-profit organisations, self-employed, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Under the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1), Member States exempt home care where it meets the conditions set out in Article 13 of the Directive, in particular where it is provided by bodies governed by public law.

In addition, the Member States may apply a reduced rate to the supply of services and goods by bodies recognised as charitable by the Member State and engaged in welfare and social security work, where these are not exempt. Currently, the following rates are applied: Belgium: 6 %, 21 %,

exempt; Denmark: 25 %; Germany: 7 %; Greece: 8 %; Spain: 7 %; France: 20,6 %; Ireland: exempt; Italy: 20 %; Luxembourg: 3 %, 15 %, exempt; Netherlands: 17,5 %; Austria: 0 %, 10 %; Portugal: 17 %; Finland: exempt; Sweden: exempt, 25 %; United Kingdom: exempt. In other cases, the normal rate of VAT is applicable.

Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999, amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced rate of VAT on labour-intensive services(2), also enables Member States, upon request, to apply a reduced rate to domestic care services from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002. Greece, France, Italy and Portugal have submitted requests for these services.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Russia: case of Dmitry Neverovsky, an imprisoned conscientious objector, tabled on 9 December 1999

Dmitry Neverovsky, a 26 year old mathematician from Obninsk in the Kaluga region, declared his conscientious objection in 1997. In October 1999, a criminal prosecution case was brought against him. During the trial, which took place on 24 and 25 November in Obninsk, Mr Neverovsky stated again that he objected to military service as a protest against the war in Chechnya. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Apparently, Dmitry Neverovsky is today the only conscientious objector imprisoned in the Russian Federation.

The right to conscientious objection and to the replacement of compulsory military service by an alternative civilian service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 59(3)). This constitutional right (as well as other civil rights and liberties) is directly applicable, according to Articles 15 and 18 of the Constitution, although the Federal law regulating the questions of performing alternative civilian service has not yet been adopted by the State Duma. According to the decision taken by

the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on 22 May 1996, conscientious objection to military service does not constitute corpus delicti, even in absence of the law on alternative civilian service. Meanwhile, respect for the right of citizens to conscientious objection and the rapid introduction of the alternative civilian service were two of the main conditions for Russia's being accepted as a Member State of the Council of Europe in 1996.

What kind of measures does the Council intend to undertake in order to require the authorities of the Russian Federation to cease the criminal prosecution of Dmitry Neverovsky and the hundreds of Russian conscientious objectors and to respect the constitutionally and internationally guaranteed rights of Russian citizens and the international obligations of the Russian Federation?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

The Council took note of the Resolution of the European Parliament of 20 January expressing grave concern at the sentencing of Mr Neverovsky to two years of imprisonment for having protested against the war in Chechnya, as allowed by the Russian constitution.

The Presidency asked the Heads of Mission in Moscow to enquire into the case of Mr Neverovsky. Should the allegations be substantiated, the Heads of Mission would, without delay, bring the issue up with the competent Russian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2673/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Import of donkeys from CEECs to the EU for slaughter

How many live donkeys were imported from central and eastern European countries for slaughter in the EU in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Customs statistics do not differentiate between the different purposes for which donkeys are imported into the Community. The total number of those animals which in 1997 and 1998 were imported from Central and Eastern European countries are respectively 4 715 and 7 467. More than 90 % of them were of Romanian origin and imported into Italy.