ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Water and sewerage provisions

Can the Commission indicate which level of government or other body is responsible for the provision of water and sewerage in each Member State and how such provisions are financed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1998)

First of all, the structure of the water and sewerage services is the responsibility of each Member State in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and there is no Community legislation on it.

According to the information available to the Commission, as a general rule the production and distribution of drinking water and the collection and treatment of urban waste water in the Member States is the responsibility of the municipalities concerned, groups of municipalities or municipal or regional bodies.

The management of the service may be provided by the public body itself or delegated to another public body or to a private or semi-public company. Exceptions are the cities of Athens and Thessaloniki in Greece, where the service is the responsibility of national publicly-owned institutions, and England and Wales, where the service is the responsibility of private companies.

Investment costs are covered by a combination of a specific payment by the user and financial aid awarded at local, regional, national or Community level, except in Ireland where there is no specific payment. Operating costs are generally covered by the specific payment by the user, again except in Ireland.

On this subject, it should be noted that the proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(1) provides for the cost of the service to be recovered from users in accordance with the principle of rational use of water resources, while ensuring the quality of the service provided.

(1) COM(97) 49 final, as amended by COM(98) 76 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0999/98

by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Commission

(2 April 1998)

Subject: Community competitions

Is it true that the Commission is accepting or has accepted applications from persons holding a Fachhochschuldiplom for open competitions to fill category A/LA posts in the European civil service?

Which does the Commission consider the highest education qualification in Germany: the Fachhochschuldiplom, or the Hochschuldiplom (university-level degree)?

Does the Commission consider the Fachhochschuldiplom a higher qualification than that of Ingeniero Técnico? If so, why?

Why does the Commission assert that the situation vis-à-vis the Spanish Ingeniero Técnico diploma is similar to that of the diploma obtained at a Fachhochschule, when the latter is accepted for the majority of category A/LA open competitions?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1048/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for the metal-mining industry

In its forthcoming review of the regulations governing European Union subsidies, has the Commission made provision for special subsidies for areas that will be suffering the social and economic consequences of closure of the metal-mining industry? Such aid would be designed to encourage reconversion in these traditionally industrial areas.

Is the Commission aware that this situation is facing the metal-mining industry at Reocín in Spain, Kirnna in Sweden, Tara in Ireland and Pyhäsalmi in Finland, all of which are entering a state of crisis as a result of the exhaustion of their mineral reserves?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 1998)

In its proposals for a new regulation laying down general provisions on the structural funds presented to Council and Parliament on 18 March 1998(1), the Commission has proposed a new objective 2 for areas "facing structural problems of socio-economic conversion". On the basis of the criteria in the regulation, a list of areas would be drawn up by the Commission, in close consultation with the Member States, which would be eligible for support under the structural funds to promote economic diversification and the creation of new employment opportunities.

The criteria contain specific provisions allowing areas with problems linked to their dependence on specific industrial sectors in decline to be included on the new objective 2 list. Such areas could include those where the problems relate to the decline of the extractive industry. However, final decisions on eligibility can only be taken once the regulations have been formally adopted and on the basis of the latest data available at that time. It is therefore too early at this stage to speculate on the eligibility of the individual areas to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/98

by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Customs duties

The customs point at Algeciras (Spain) has to deal with about 35 000 EU goods lorries per annum en route to Morocco. Up till now, the export clearance for many of these lorries has had to be carried out by the customs officials on Monday mornings, since the customs points in the countries of origin are closed on Friday afternoons, when the lorries are loaded.

Does the Commission consider this practice to be compatible with the Customs Code? Does it consider this circumstance to fall within the scope of Article 790 of the implementing regulation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

Article 161(5) of Regulation (EEC) 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(1) sets out the basic rules governing the place where export formalities must be completed. In principle, this must be the place where the exporter is established or where the goods are packed or loaded for export shipment.

Commission Regulation (EEC) 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(2) allows two exceptions to this general rule.

Article 790 thereof allows a derogation in cases where the general rule cannot be applied for administrative reasons. Such cases must be limited to situations in which a geographical restriction is imposed on a customs office competent for completion of the formalities in question.

Secondly, Article 791 allows derogations for duly justified reasons. In the interests of uniform application of the customs rules, the Customs Code Committee has frequently considered situations giving rise to the application of this provision.

It was decided, among other issues, that the fact that the opening hours of a customs office, competent under the terms of Article 161(5) of the Customs Code, do not correspond to the working hours of an exporter, can not constitute a duly justified reason permitting a derogation from the general rule. Indeed, under normal circumstances, an exporter's logistical organisation must expect to take account of such opening hours.

In the case of firms which frequently need to complete customs formalities outside normal opening hours, an authorisation to enable the application of simplified procedures would seem an appropriate solution, naturally on condition that all requirements are fulfilled.

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

(2) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: VAT

On the assumption that current rates of duty and VAT are applied, what rate of duty and VAT will be levied on a bottle of spirits sold on board ship, following the proposed abolition of duty-free sales on a vessel en route:

1. from Dover to Calais and return:

(a) when the vessel is in UK territorial waters

(b) when the vessel is in French territorial waters

2. from Portsmouth to Santander and return:

(a) when the vessel is in UK territorial water

(b) when the vessel is outside territorial waters

(c) when the vessel is in French territorial waters

(d) when the vessel is in Spanish territorial waters?

What will be the cash sums charged in duty and VAT in these locations on a bottle of spirits of which the duty-free and VAT-free price is ECU 10?

Will the VAT charged, in cash terms, vary according to the relevant rate of duty? To which Member State or States will the duty and VAT be payable? What plans has the Commission to simplify the system?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

The Commission confirms to the Honourable Member that the current Community provisions in the fiscal field ensure the appropriate taxation of sales at airports and on board aircraft and ferries which will be applicable on 1st July 1999, after the expiry of the transitional period allowed by the Council to the tax-free sector.

The elements provided in the question, which may appear specific cover nevertheless a large range of situations and products and require detailed explanation, which is not possible in this framework.

For this reason, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to contact its services (directorate C of DG XXI) who will provide him with an appropriate and complete answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1332/98

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Possible non-payment of 1997 premiums to sheep and goat farmers in the Prefecture of Rethimnon

During on the spot investigations it carried out in the Prefecture of Rethimnon in May 1997 a team from the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture noted a number of failures to comply with the regulations and procedures governing sheep and goats; this led to an exchange of letters on this matter between the relevant Commission services and the Greek Ministry of Agriculture from which it transpired that Greece might be fined. However, a heavy share of responsibility for these omissions lies indisputably with the Ministry of Agriculture services which failed to carry out the required controls and draw up the necessary reports. Faced with the threat that Greece might be fined, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture has now made it clear that it is considering not paying premiums to sheep and goat farmers in the Prefecture of Rethimnon for 1997, arguing that it is the Commission that is responsible for this harsh measure. Although it is generally recognised that substantive measures must be taken to make the system more transparent, will the Commission confirm that it is ultimately at the discretion of the Ministry of Agriculture whether or not to pay premiums to sheep and goat farmers in the Prefecture of Rethimnon for 1997 and that, if it does not finally do so, this will be a purely political decision by the Ministry of Agriculture and not a penalty it has imposed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Findings arising from the audit of May 1997, conducted in the context of the clearance of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) accounts, are still under consideration and subject to bilateral exchanges between the Commission and the Greek authorities.

Under the clearance of accounts procedure, the Commission does not impose fines but refuses Community financing of expenditure not incurred in accordance with Community rules. Payment of premiums in the Prefecture of Rethimnon for 1997 should be decided by the Greek authorities on the basis of their control findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: 1998 consumer protection projects

Following the doubts expressed in Portugal by reliable consumer protection organizations regarding the criteria for the approval of projects to be carried out in Portugal with Community funding in 1998 in accordance with the notice in OJ C 277, 12.9.1997, will the Commission provide the following information:

1. How many projects to be carried out in Portugal have been approved by the Commission for 1998, and what are they?

2. What are the Portuguese organizations whose projects have been approved?

3. What were the main criteria used for approval of projects?

4. How have the budgetary resources available for such projects been shared out among the various Member States of the European Union?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0758/98

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Compensation for injuries caused by wild animals

Both the EU and the Member States have rules for the protection of wild animals, including predators. The situation sometimes arises with large species of predators that people are injured when they are attacked by these animals. In my home region a man was very seriously injured a few years ago by a bear. Does the Commission consider that the requirements imposed by the EU and the Member States for the protection of predators species also imply an obligation to compensate people harmed as a result of attacks by predators? Who is responsible for ensuring that persons thus injured are fully compensated?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1998)

According to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), the so-called Habitats Directive, such big predatory mammals occurring in the Community as the brown bear, wolf (with the exception of some populations) and lynx are strictly protected among a number of other wild animals.

It has been necessary to provide such a protection regime for these species, which in many parts of the Community have been exterminated a long time ago. However, the Commission is aware that these species may sometimes pose a threat to human safety. The lowering of this threat is adequately covered in the Habitats Directive by making it possible to derogate from the strict protection provisions, when there is no satisfactory alternative, for specific reasons such as in the interest of public safety (Article 16(c)).

The provisions of the Habitats Directive when carried over to the national laws provide sufficient possibilities for overall regulation of the populations of big predatory mammals. The compensation for damage caused by predators is part of overall national responsibility concerning the regulation of these populations. The relevant decision and compensation arrangements have to be taken at a national level.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: EU contributions and financial aid

Different figures are repeatedly circulated in various publications and press releases concerning Austria's annual contributions to the EU and the level of funding that Austria receives back through various support programmes. Will the Commission therefore reply to the following questions:

1. What were Austria's gross contributions in 1996 and 1997?

2. What assumptions are likely to be used to determine the contributions for 1998?

3. What was the scale of the commitment appropriations earmarked by the Commission (for 1996 and 1997) which could have been returned to Austria?

4. What level of funding was approved by the Commission (for 1996 and 1997)?

5. What level of funding was actually received by Austria from the EU in 1996 and 1997 (broken down by recipient area and type of aid)?

6. What is the difference in each case between the commitment appropriations, the level of funding approved by the EU and the financial aid actually received by Austria, in respect of 1996 and 1997?

7. What funding which was not taken up by Austria in 1996 and 1997 has lapsed and been lost to Austria?

8. What financial aid has Austria applied for to date in respect of 1998?

9. What financial aid (in respect of Austria) for 1998 has been approved by the Commission to date?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 1998)

Subject: German tax regime

Two years ago the German authorities introduced an "Ausländersteuer" on anyone working in Germany in sport or the arts. This levy is a flat rate at 25 %. A Briton working in Germany and paying 7 % "Solidaritätszuschlag" on earnings has the right to reclaim 25 % from the Finanzamt since he is a UK national. In reality this is beset with many problems.

Is the Commission aware of the tax? What is their estimate of its effects and does the Commission believe it is a barrier to free movement which could be challenged in law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1998)

The Commission is aware of the changes in German legislation whereby the special rate of 15 % withholding tax, which was levied on fees paid to non-resident artists and sportsmen, was abolished in 1996, with the result that such payments are now subject to the general minimum rate of 25 % charged in Germany on the income of non-residents. Depending on the individual's circumstances, this tax may be totally or partially reimbursed following the submission of a tax return.

Furthermore, the German taxes give rise to a tax credit against United Kingdom tax payable on this income under the existing bilateral tax convention.

Under these circumstances and taking into account the fact that income taxes are not harmonised within the Community, the Commission does not see a case for any legal challenge to the relevant legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/98

by Monica Baldi (PPE) to the Commission

(9 March 1998)

Subject: Species that may be hunted

The species listed in Annex II to Directive 79/409/EEC(1) of 2 April 1979 may be hunted under the legislation of the Member State.

The species listed in Annex II/2 however may be hunted only in the Member State in which they are mentioned. Starlings are included in Annex II/2 for all the Union's Mediterranean countries except Italy.

In a letter dated 6 August 1997 (ref. 23.035) the Ministry for agricultural policies requested that hunting be authorized for species excluded from the list of those that can be hunted under Article 18 of Law No 157 of 11 February 1992. The National institute for wild fauna gave its assent, taking account of the satisfactory level of conservation, the widespread distribution and migratory tendency and the estimates and damage caused to crops.

1. What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to accede to Italy's request that starlings be included in Annex II/2?

2. What initiatives does it intend to take in order to grant a general system of derogation for the purpose of containing the damage caused to agriculture until adoption of the amended request?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Annex II.2 of the "Birds" Directive 79/409/EEC was amended in 1994 to allow hunting of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in Greece, Spain, France and Portugal. During the discussions which led to the adoption of Directive 94/24/EEC of 8 June 1994 amending Annex II to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds,(2) Italy made no request in this connection.

In order to include Italy in the list of countries in which starlings may be hunted, a further amendment would have to be made to Directive 79/409/EEC. However, in view of the fact that the directive has recently been amended again (Commission Directive 97/49/EEC of 29 July 1997 amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(3)) to allow phalacrocorax carbo sinensis to be excluded and that Italy did not raise the case of starlings during these discussions, the Commission is not planning to propose further amendments in the immediate future.

It should be pointed out that, by way of derogation and under strictly determined conditions, Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC allows species not listed in Annex II to the Directive to be hunted. The application of this derogation is a matter for the individual Member State. However, the Commission ensures that the conditions for the application of the derogation have been met in each case and that the consequences of such a derogation are not incompatible with the Directive.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994.

(3) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Swingeing taxation on used lorries imported into Greece

The Greek authorities intend to impose swingeing taxes on used lorries imported into Greece, even recent models fitted with EURO II-type engines. The new high level of taxation which is proposed ('special registration tax') will mean an excessive increase in the cost of used vehicles and in particular of lorries over 3.5 tonnes in weight.

The Greek Government calculates the value of imported vehicles taking into account not the import invoice, but the retail sale value of a new lorry, subject to an annual depreciation which reaches 52 % after six years.

Will the Commission give its official views on this new swingeing taxation for used lorries and on the fact that the Greek authorities seem unwilling to accept import invoices for lorries (which are clearly official Community tax documents) but intend to take the retail sales price of new lorries as a basis for their calculations?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Food legislation - consumer health

In connection with "The General Principles of Food Law in the European Union" (Commission Green Paper) and "Consumer Health and Food Safety" (Commission Communication) (COM(98) 176 final and COM(97) 183 final),

can the Commission ensure the simplification and rationalization of food law, in so far as this does not prejudice essential safety standards?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1197/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Human rights in China

On 16 March 1998 Mr Brittan, Commissioner, met the Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng in order to discuss human rights in China. On that occasion he explained that the EU would not table or support any resolution critical of China within the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Could Mr Brittan explain why the Commission has declined to support or table any kind of resolution calling for human rights to be respected in China?

Does the Commission not consider that the European Union's human rights policy requires just such a resolution?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1131/98 by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra(1).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/98

by Dominique Souchet (I-EDN) to the Commission

(2 March 1998)

Subject: Prohibition on the use of driftnets

According to the Commission's latest proposals, the use of driftnets would be prohibited on the high seas in the Atlantic and still be authorised in coastal waters.

In these circumstances, driftnets would be prohibited for French fishermen fishing for deep-sea albacove tuna (Azorean area) and solely authorised for Spanish fishermen, since one of the migration routes of this species passes along the Spanish Cantabrian coast (Iberian area).

In other words, driftnets would be regarded as "good" fishing gear (in other words selective not harmful to shipping or the natural migration routes of tuna, etc.) within the twelve-mile limit and "bad" fishing gear beyond that limit in the international zones situated more than 500 km offshore.

Can the Commission explain the scientific, ecological or technical arguments justifying these different rules so that French fishermen are not under the impression that the latter favour Spain and Portugal to their detriment?