ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Implications of the EU and US banana dispute

Is the Commission aware of the damaging effects on a number of companies within the EU resulting from the EU and US banana dispute? Will the Commission be acting speedily to bring to an end the dispute to ensure that jobs throughout the EU are safeguarded?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1001/00, E-1002/00 and E-1003/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it does not see any possibility to grant compensation to those companies within the Community which have been affected by the increase in American tariffs.

The Commission is aware of the serious consequences these measures can have on those affected and is determined to resolve the issue with the greatest possible dispatch.

The Commission presented on 10 November 1999 to the Council and the Parliament a proposal to amend its banana import regulations(1) so as to be in full conformity with World Trade Organisation rules.

In parallel the Commission has explored whether a solution could be found to the dispute with the parties involved. In particular, at the end of March 2000, Commission representatives met with their American counterparts in Washington. This meeting, however, was inconclusive and showed how difficult it is to agree a mutually acceptable system.

The Commission would like to confirm that no efforts are spared to end this dispute in the shortest possible timeframe. The Commission hopes that the Parliament will support these endeavours by voting rapidly its opinion on the Commission proposal of 10 November 1999.

(1) COM(1999) 582 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1873/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Nuclear-related provisions set aside in Germany

Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, State aids are prohibited in the Community if they affect trade between Member States. At the latest since expiry of the time limit for transposition of the directive on the internal market for electricity, the conditions have existed for large-scale electricity trading between Member States.

The admission of all provisions made for disposal and for decommissioning of nuclear power stations in Germany, which reduces tax liability, represents a departure from the principles underpinning tax law that goes against the entire system and is tantamount to aid, since:

- the provisions of the firms concerned are freely disposable and are subject to no statutory requirements in terms of risk, return or availability,

- obligation, with regard to the cost of dismantling nuclear power stations, is, unlike what should be the case, given no tangible expression in law or in an administrative decision,

- in the light of what is available as a basis for an appraisal (e.g. Deregulation Commission report, 1990/91), provisions to cover the cost of disposal are excessive and cannot therefore be regarded in their entirety as attribution of a future cost to the point in time when it is caused.

1. Does the Commission agree with the above position?

2. Has the Commission's competition authority already intervened to counter this serious violation of EU competition law?

3. If not, must not the Commission put up with being reproached for applying different standards (contrary to the Electricity Network Supply Act), especially as its attention has already been drawn more than once to what are tantamount to subsidies for nuclear-related provisions set aside in Germany (Questions E-2472/97(1) and P-2422/99(2))?

4. What action is planned to put an end to this deplorable state of affairs as soon as possible?

(1) OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 114.

(2) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 171.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the facts which the question assesses as a departure from the principles underpinning tax law and tantamount to aid. However, the Commission needs for its assessment still further inquiries so that for the time being, it cannot be said whether it agrees with the Honourable Member's position.

1. Due to the fact that the inquiries are not closed yet, no decision has been taken in the matter so far.

2. The Commission has to examine complaints against breaches of Community competition rules. The progress of the inquiry into complaints depends upon the individual case and the complexity of the factual and legal questions which have to be solved in the case concerned.

3. The Commission will decide upon the appropriate measures and actions after a final assessment of the facts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1173/00

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Information society funding in the automotive sector

In view of the restructuring taking place in the West Midlands car industry, as a result of the break up of the Rover Group by BMW,

could the Commission please consider providing special funding for information society projects to the West Midlands region focusing on activities where jobs could be created for the skilled workforce now facing unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Support for economic development programmes under the European structural funds will be significant in the West Midlands over the 2000-2006 period. The development of the information society is one of the Commission's priorities following the e-Europe initiative launched at the Lisbon European Council and permeates many of the European funding initiatives. The Commission will be seeking to ensure that in the next generation of structural funds programmes for the region, the development of the information society is properly taken on board, in line with the e-Europe initiative.

First, a large part of the West Midlands region is eligible for structural fund support under the headings of Objective 2 and Objective 2 Phasing-out. With an allocation of over 850 M, the West Midlands programme will be the biggest in the United Kingdom under Objective 2 in the 2000-2006 period.

The West Midlands Objective 2 development plan has recently been submitted by the authorities in the Member State to the Commission and identifies the following four priorities: (1) developing a diverse and dynamic business base; (2) creating a learning and skilful region; (3) creating the infrastructure and conditions for growth; (4) regenerating communities. Support for innovation and the development of the information society will be one of the cross-cutting themes of the programme. Within these priorities, the following activities may be envisaged: support for training in the use of and the promotion of information and communications technology; support for high technology SMEs including specialist business support; and start up capital through grants, loans or equity financing. The draft plan underlines the need to create jobs and assesses each of the proposed priorities identified above in terms of the creation of new jobs.

Secondly, the West Midlands will receive a share of the Objective 3 programme worth 4 500 million in total in the United Kingdom. Together with Objective 2, this funding can be used to support the redeployment of the skilled personnel previously employed in the car industry.

In addition to these amounts, the West Midlands could also receive support for innovative projects including more in the field of the information society. The Commission is currently developing a set of guidelines in relation to these actions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: European Museum project

The Treaty lays down that the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. In its answer to Written Question E-2461/99, the Council said nothing about applying this Community objective to the European Museum project.

Given the project's progress and the possible involvement of EU institutions, I should be grateful if the Council would answer the following questions:

1. Is the possible selection of the Empire of Charlemagne as the historical starting point of the European Museum in compliance with the treaty provision referred to above?

(a) If so, what arguments can the Council advance to reconcile it with the treaty provision that the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, mldr and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore?

(b) If not, what concept does the Council deem appropriate to reconcile the European Museum with the treaty provision that the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, mldr and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore?

2. Does the Council feel that the promoters should apply the language legislation of the Belgian Federation fully and correctly in the European Museum in order to act in accordance with the treaty provision referred to above?

(a) If so, will the Council, in due course, ask the promoters to apply the language legislation of the Belgian Federation fully and correctly in the European Museum in order to act in accordance with the treaty provision which states that the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversitymldr?

(b) If not, why not, since non-application of the language legislation will breach the treaty provision that the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Museum Project referred to by the Honourable Member is not the result of a Community initiative.

The Council did not therefore receive a Commission proposal for the setting up of such a museum. At its meeting on 23 November 1999 the Council was briefed by the Greek delegation and took note of that delegation's concerns regarding the objectives and priorities of the project as conceived by the Belgian private law association which is the promoter.

The Council will adopt an appropriate position, within the framework of its powers, if a proposal is put to it directly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2182/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Ownership structure of Energie AG

The land of Upper Austria is 100 % owner of the energy-supply undertaking Energie AG. Liberalisation of the electricity market is forcing energy suppliers to create larger units in order to retain customers for their electricity by lowering costs and increasing market penetration.

The Upper Austria land assembly (Landtag) consequently decided to sell a 25,1 % share in Energie AG. At the same time it was determined that suppliers who use nuclear power in electricity generation would be excluded from submitting bids. As a consequence of that decision, only Austrian electricity undertakings can submit bids for the 25,1 % and electricity undertakings in other EC countries are excluded from bidding.

Does such a procedure comply with European law, and are contracts concluded under such conditions valid in EU law?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The matter referred to by the honourable member is not covered by European directives on contracts by invitation to tender. As a result, it is up to the owner of Energie AG, the Land of Upper Austria, to stipulate the conditions for inclusion in the group of potential buyers that must be met by those seeking to acquire a 25,1 % share. This must of course be in compliance with all the provisions of the contract.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Threat to dolphins by fishing practices

What assessment has the Commission made of the threat to dolphins caused by the use of pelagic nets by French and Spanish fishing vessels, and what action does it intend to take to prevent the avoidable killing of dolphin in this way?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problem and shares the concern of the Honourable Member at the incidental capture of dolphins in certain pelagic fishing activities.

However, the Commission would first of all point out that Spanish fishing vessels are not allowed to use pelagic trawls due to the provisions of Spanish legislation.

By-catches of cetaceans by midwater trawls are nevertheless a major concern for the Commission and involve several Member States, mainly in Northern Europe including France.

For this reason the Commission has supported several research projects and studies on interaction between marine mammals (mainly cetaceans) and fishing activities, both in Atlantic and North Sea areas as well as in the Mediterranean. As an example, the most recent study approved for funding entitled Automated detection of dolphins around pelagic trawls, is being conducted by the Royal society for nature conservation and is expected to be finalised by 31 July 2001.

Research and studies cannot be sufficient. The Commission on the basis of the results of the above-mentioned studies and all other available information, will consider all possibilities for tackling effectively this problem. These include co-ordination of national policies, improvement of scientific knowledge and proposal of improved measures on control of by-catches.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2238/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Charges on use of credit cards in the euro zone

Credit card users are not required to pay extra charges for individual transactions inside each country.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Can credit card users really be charged for use of their cards in other Euro-zone countries?

2. If so, given that there is no exchange risk involved, should the charge be the same for all transactions or a percentage of the amount paid?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

Two types of commission are generally charged on the crossborder use of credit cards: firstly, a service commission because the service is rendered outside the Member State where the card was issued; this covers the costs incurred by the banks in using international authorisation and recovery networks, which is not the case for domestic transactions; and secondly an exchange commission to cover exchange risks.

Exchange commissions have not been charged on transactions between two Member States in the euro area since 1 January 1999. They remain applicable to transactions outside that area.

Service charges can take different forms: either a flat fee per transaction or a percentage of the amount (this is more common), or a combination of the two.

Credit card issuers are required to be transparent vis-à-vis their clients, whom they must inform of the rates obtaining for crossborder transactions, but they are free to apply such rates.

It is for each bank to determine the relevant costs in the light of competition in their field. In its communication on retail payments in the internal market(1), the Commission expressed the wish that as far as possible transactions within the market be invoiced identically with domestic transactions; this is not yet the case, with the exception of Belgian issuers.

(1) COM(2000) 36 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1611/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: IFOP and the Basque Country

Can the Commission provide information on the utilisation of IFOP resources in the Basque region of Spain over the period 1994-1999?

Despite the existing Objective 1 framework, does the Commission believe that any fisheries projects could be covered by this new Structural Fund in that (Objective 2) region?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1999, aid totalling 68,55 million was paid under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) to projects located in the Basque Autonomous Community. That amount does not include all structural aid to the fisheries and aquaculture sector during the 1994-1999 programming period, since projects may still be carried out until the end of 2001 provided that the managing authority for the programme selected them before 31 December 1999.

During the new programming period (2000-06), all the fisheries sector structural measures referred to in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999(1) may be financed by the FIFG throughout Community territory.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/00

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Questions on the EC-Mexico Agreement

1. What appropriations are earmarked for this in the Budget?

2. The EC-Mexico Agreement lists 29 areas of cooperation. How does the Commission intend to put this into practice?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his inquiry. It is correct that the EC-Mexico agreement foresees a total of 29 areas of mutual co-operation. The agreement is as comprehensive as possible due to the fact that it was concluded for an unlimited time frame. In the strategy paper for Mexico, a stricter setting of priorities has been planned for the coming years. Co-operation with Mexico will focus on the strengthening of good governance, on economic co-operation, on the struggle against poverty as well as on the areas of science, technology, culture and education. The extent of funds available for such co-operation depends on the decisions made by the budgetary authorities in following years.

At present the Community budget contains no specific allocation of funds linked to the agreement. Within the relevant budget lines, amounts for individual countries are allocated according to criteria such as the size and relative level of development of each country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1108/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: UN 2000 Millennium General Assembly and Summit Meeting

Does the Commission recognise the opportunity offered by the United Nations 2000 Millennium General Assembly and Summit Meeting to address shared international concerns for peace, environmental sustainability and poverty reduction?

Will the Commission clarify how it intends to reform and strengthen the UN on the principles of greater efficiency and greater accountability?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0918/00 and E-1108/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission expects that the proposals to be made by the Millennium Forum in May 2000 will be presented at the Millennium Summit by a spokesman for the Forum. The Commission also expects that such proposals will be discussed in the round-table discussions, the reports of which will be annexed to the Millennium Summit declaration.

The Commission fully recognizes the opportunity offered by the 2000 Millennium General Assembly and Summit Meeting of the United Nations to address shared international concerns for peace, sustainable development and poverty reduction.

The Commission is of course open to taking on board such proposals to the extent that they are compatible with Community policies and within the limits of the Commission's competences.

With regard to the organisational aspects of reform and strengthening the United Nations to increase efficiency and accountability, the Commission plays its role in the coordination with regard to Community decision-making in this area, as well as in the external representation of the Community's position on these issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Classification of medical equipment

Further to my question No. P-1622/00(1) and your answer of 16 June 2000, I would come back to the matter of erroneously classified medical devices.

In brief, the product in question has been wrongly classified. The UK's Medical Device Agency (MDA) has admitted that this is the case. The MDA, however, is not taking any action against the company concerned, even though it continues to market and sell its product despite its erroneous classification.

The Danish health authorities have, in fact, also complained to the UK health authorities.

Obviously, this situation creates distortion of competition for a Danish manufacturer of a similar product which is correctly classified.

Given that the MDA is now aware of the erroneous classification and has received a complaint from the Danish manufacturer concerning the disparity in the terms of competition, how does the Commission propose to proceed on the matter?

What action can a company take in regard to a national authority which does not intervene, for reasons unknown, to prevent distortion of competition despite acknowledging that the product is erroneously classified?

(1) JO C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 207.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf on the Commission

(20 September 2000)

In view of the additional information provided by the Honourable Member on the classification of certain medical devices, the Commission will investigate the allegation with the British authorities and, if appropriate, take the necessary action to ensure a coherent enforcement of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices(1) so as to eliminate any potential market distortion.

As to the action that may be taken by companies with regard to national authorities that do not fulfil their obligations of market surveillance and enforcement, use should be made of the legal or other remedies available at national level in the Member States concerned.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.