ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4012/00

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

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Spanish water resources plan

Spain's draft national water resources plan does not appear to pay great heed to the aims laid down in the framework Directive on water policy, namely sustainable use of water and maintenance of the ecological and environmental quality of water systems, avoiding the deterioration caused by the construction and operation of large dams. In addition, it will affect a great many special conservation areas for birds and species covered by Annex II to the Habitats Directive, in particular the otter and the pardel lynx.

In the light of the short-term goals for 2004 to 2006, as charted in the Directive:

- how will the Commission ensure that the Spanish water resources plan conforms to the above objectives?

- how will it ensure that the plan is consistent with the framework Directive on water policy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Oral Questions H-843/00(1) and H-904/00(2) put by Mrs Sornosa Martínez at question time during Parliament's November and December sessions, respectively.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 2000).

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (December 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4084/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Italian law on the buying, registration and selling of cars

Does the European Commission believe that the Italian law governing the buying, registration and selling of cars complies with EC law, with particular regard to nationals of other EU Member States who are legally resident there?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission has looked into issues relating to the car market, with particular regard to State measures governing the import and registration of new and second-hand cars for private or business use. It has dealt, for example, with a complaint concerning the possibility of Community citizens buying and registering vehicles in Italy without being legally resident in that Member State. The case was resolved and filed in 2000 after a circular was adopted giving all Community citizens the right to register a car in Italy under their own name, provided that they have reasonably close ties to the country (for example, if they own a secondary residence there).

However, the Commission would like to give the fullest possible answer to the Honourable Member's question, which seems to concern a problem encountered by nationals of other Member States when buying or registering cars in Italy. To do this, the Commission would need further details concerning legal provisions, practical difficulties (for example, documents required and compulsory technical inspections), administrative or fiscal barriers, and any excessive costs, which might exist in this Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3914/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Daphne Programme

The author of this question is extremely concerned at the fact that, this year, no Portuguese projects have been approved under the Daphne programme.

Since Portugal is a country which normally submits quality projects in this field, would the Commission state the reasons which prompted it to take such a decision?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

For the year 2000, the Commission received 415 proposals under the Daphne programme. Amongst those, 308 were eligible. After evaluation, 47 projects were selected for funding, for a total amount of 4 590 045.

Amongst the 415 proposals received, 15 were promoted by a Portuguese organisation; 11 out of these 15 were eligible. The final selection of 47 projects includes 1 project lead by a Portuguese organisation (Associaçao Fernao Mendes Pinto in Montemor-o-Velho). Furthermore, amongst the 361 organisations involved in all the selected projects, 27 (7,5 %) are Portuguese.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3825/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: EU Fundamental Charter of Human Rights

Many commentators on the Charter on Fundmental Rights pointed out during the Convention process that the budgetary implications arising from its adoption, the allocation of costs for implementing the Charter at EU, Member State and social partner level, and the wider impact on European business competitiveness have not been assessed by either EU institutions or by national parliaments.

Is there not a Treaty obligation on the Commission (Protocol 7 to the Amsterdam Treaty on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality) to conduct a qualitative and quantitative mpact assessment of the social and economic provisions of the Charter of Fundmental Rights?

Does the Commission agree that an impact assessment is required on on the basis of the Lisbon Summit conclusions on compliance cost burdens?

Will the Commission undertake to carry out and publish such a study?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The Commission would point out that the obligations imposed on it by Protocol 7 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (to which the Honourable Member refers), and in particular by paragraphs 4 and 9 of the said Protocol, apply solely to its proposals for legislation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was drawn up in accordance with a special procedure at the European Council's request and which is eventually to form part of the Union's primary legislation, does not fall into that category.

As regards the substantive issue, the Commission is convinced that the visibility which the Charter confers on fundamental rights, far from being an obstacle to the Union's economic development, is in fact entirely favourable to such development, in line with the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council to which the Honourable Member refers.

This approach was reaffirmed by the Nice European Council, which approved the European Social Agenda for the next five years. According to the conclusions reached at Nice, this Agenda is an important step towards reinforcing and modernising the European social model, a key feature of which is the indissoluble link between economic performance and social progress.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission does not consider it necessary to carry out the study suggested by the Honourable Member into the cost of compliance with the proposed legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4025/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Refusal of grant to the International Youth Festival in Wertheim in Germany

I have received letters from the Huntingdon Town Council in England informing me that the European Union has previously funded International Youth Festivals designed to promote the European Union.

Similar letters have been received form Huntingdon's twin towns, Wertheim am Main, Szentendre and Salon de Provence.

This year, the European Union has decided to withdraw funding from the Wertheim am Main International Youth Festival. I am told by Huntingdon Town Council that this has caused them consternation and great concern.

Why has the funding ceased?

Will the European Commission reconsider its decision to withdraw the funding?

What is the total amount of funding given by the European Commission to support international youth festivals in each EU country and, specifically, to Huntingdon, Szentendre and Salon de Provence since 1 January 1986.

What is the annual budget for the European Commission's expenditure on international youth festivals.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The request for funding for the Wertheim Youth Festival was submitted in the context of the Commission's programme supporting actions to promote town-twinning.

The Commission was unable to meet the funding request because the available budget had been used up so quickly. The fact is that town-twinning sponsorship proved so successful that demand outstripped the Commission's capacity to provide financial support. In order to be able to handle grant applications with the budget available, the Commission found itself obliged to set a closing date of 15 September for funding applications for the year 2000(1).

Anxious to improve the quality of the service provided, the Commission revised the grant application procedure for the year 2001(2).

The towns that organise the Wertheim International Youth Festival may submit their grant application for 2001 using this new procedure. In due course the Commission will verify the eligibility of the application.

The Commission has no specific statistics on the funding of international festivals.

Similarly, it does not allocate a specific portion of the budget to such activitiese, which are normally covered by various programmes.

(1) Notice on town-twinning grants, OJ C 238, 22.8.2000.

(2) Call for proposals DG EAC No 75/00, OJ C 320, 9.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3562/00

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Transfer system for professional football players

Is the Commission prepared to involve the European Parliament in the decision-making process concerning the transfer system for professional football players?

Can the Commission say why the system of a contractually pre-determined transfer fee which is payable in the event of non-compliance with the contract the system which is the norm in the world of professional football is in conflict with European rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

In the area of competition policy the Commission has always sought to consult Parliament and take its advice into consideration. Consultation, however, is limited to legislative proposals and other texts of a legal, political or otherwise general nature. In individual competition cases there has always been an understanding between the Commission and Parliament that it would not discuss in Parliament details of pending cases or consult it on such cases. This understanding is based in particular on the sole responsibility of the Commission for deciding competition cases as well as on the fact that many of the details of such cases are confidential. In any event, the Commission Member with special responsibility for competition policy regularly attends the competent committee of Parliament to discuss current competition policy issues.

With regard to transfers of football players, the Commission is of the opinion that the prior fixing between the player and the club of an amount of compensation which must be paid in the event of a breach of contract where the principle of such a clause and the amount payable are the result of free negotiations between the player and the club is not contrary to Article 81 (former Article 85) of the EC Treaty. A contractual clause of that type is not an agreement between or a decision by undertakings within the meaning of that Article, which bans anti-competitive agreements and decisions and applies only to agreements between or decisions by undertakings, that is to say, entities exercising an economic activity. The system must also be assessed in the light of Article 39 (former Article 48) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3609/00

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Complaint against three companies in the airport sector

On 6 September 2000 the Commission received a complaint (No 37 957) lodged by four MEPs including myself, against three companies in the airport sector: Bierset Airport development and promotion (SAB), TNT Express Worldwide and GD Express Worldwide. The complaint is also against the Belgian Government. The subject at issue is the agreement signed on 26 February 1996 between the three Walloon Region companies, which infringes a number of the Treaty's provisions, particularly in the area of competition law. Since the agreement substantially affects the

Walloon Region's airport policy, especially on the amount of airport taxes and their possible adjustment to take account of the polluter-pays principle, there is an urgent need for the Commission to state its views on this complaint. Can the Commission say what steps it has taken to investigate the case, and what date it has set for completing its investigation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

On the competition issue, the complaint lodged by the Honourable Member is based firstly on Article 81 (former Article 85) of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 86 (former Article 90), and secondly on Articles 87 and 88 (former Articles 92 and 93).

As regards the aspects relating to Articles 81 and 86, the Commission has begun its examination of the complaint. On 14 December 2000 it sent a letter to the complainants, including the Honourable Member.

As regards the state aid aspects (Article 87), the Commission sent a request for information to the Belgian authorities. On the basis of their reply, it should be in a position to undertake a preliminary examination of the complaint. It is unable at this stage to prejudge the possible outcome of the examination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4001/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: The Charter of Fundamental Rights (access to documentation)

Does the Commission believe that, even if the Charter of Fundamental Rights were to be incorporated into the European treaties, Article 42 of the Charter (which states that Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents) would have no effect on the availability of documents, since Article 52(1) allows for limitations on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, whilst Article 52(2) states that Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or on the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those treaties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

Articles 42 and 52(2) of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights regarding access to documents reflect the content of Article 255 (ex Article 191a) of the EC Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

This article states that any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

It also stipulates that general principles and limits on grounds of public interest governing this right will be determined by the Council and Parliament acting in accordance with the codecision procedure.

On 26 January 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation implementing Article 255(1). This proposal is currently being examined by the other two institutions.

(1) OJ C 177 E, 27.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3827/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Seafrance: restrictions on sale of cross Channel day tickets

Further to your reply of 26 September 2000, ref. P-2824/00(1), I attach a leaflet distributed to day trippers using Seafrance ferries from April 2000.

Does the European Commission agree that the restriction for car users and foot passengers infringes passengers' rights to travel freely, and that it discriminates against day trippers in comparison with other travellers?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

The leaflet provided to the Commission by the Honourable Member shows that the operator in question offers day trip tickets at a special rate on condition that both outward and return journeys are made on the same day. In particular, day trip tickets are not valid for single journeys or where the return journey is made on a subsequent day.

It is normal practice in the travel industry to attract marginal customers by offering promotional (such as day return) tickets subject to restrictions on the time of travel. The conditions referred to by the Honourable Member appear to be designed to avoid that customers who would otherwise have brought a standard return ticket in fact buy two successive day return tickets each time using only the outward part of the ticket. Without such conditions there may be a risk that the operator would not find it worthwhile to offer cheap day return tickets at all. The Commission does not consider that the conditions referred to by the Honourable Member infringe Community rules on the free movement of persons. Nor does the Commission agree that the conditions discriminate against day trippers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3596/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Reform of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Emcdda)

The Emcdda was the subject of an external assessment early in 2000. As a result of the assessment the Centre embarked on and adopted a radical reform of its objectives and working methods. The reform was recently presented to the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which gave it a favourable reception.

Can the Commission specify what initiatives it expects to take, particularly in the light of the EU's anti-drugs campaign, which gives the Centre more extensive duties and a heightened role, to support implementation of the Centre's reform in terms of organisation and resources? Can it say how it intends to structure its cooperation with the agency in years to come, avoiding duplication of effort, making use of relevant Community programmes and machinery and taking full advantage of the Centre's working capacity and products?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

The external assessment report on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Emcdda) concluded that the Centre should refocus its efforts on its priority tasks and place the emphasis on quality rather than quantity.

The guidelines for the reform of the Centre were approved by its Management Board but they have still to be put into practice. The Director of the Centre is to present proposals for implementing the reform.

The Centre's budget has been rising quite substantially. Since 1995, the year in which it was launched, its budget has risen by over 60 %, from 5,35 million to 8,75 million in 2001. Implementation of the reform must not result in increased requirements in terms of resources but must enable the Centre to carry out its tasks (especially those entrusted to it by the action plan for 2000-2004), by becoming more efficient and concentrating on its priority tasks.

As regards the support which the Centre receives from the Commission in institutional terms, the Commission ensures that appropriate proposals are presented to the Council. Thus, following a Commission proposal(1), the Regulation establishing the Centre was amended so that it could provide technical assistance to applicant countries and undertake an assistance project worth 2 million under the PHARE programme.

Lastly, the Commission stays closely in touch with the Emcdda and is particularly anxious to foster synergies between the Centre's work and the activities carried out under Community programmes to combat drugs.

(1) OJ C 342 E, 30.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3742/00

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Insurance companies' use of genetic tests for inherited diseases

As the Commission is no doubt aware there is concern that insurance companies inside and outside the EU may seek authorisation to have access to and use genetic tests with the ultimate aim of either refusing cover or increasing premiums. The great concern is that some people may be refused life insurance and mortgages on the basis of the results of genetic tests.

Will the Commission outline whether or not it has considered this issue, and will it give an assurance that it will not support or propose legislation aimed at giving insurance companies access to or the right to see genetic test results?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the concerns about a possible general application of genetic test results for insurance purposes in all Member States.

As far as single market rules on insurance and data protection are concerned, there is no specific provision regarding the use of genetic data for insurance purposes. Under Community law and in line with the subsidiarity principle, it is for Member States to decide whether or not to authorize the use of genetic data, taking into account general good requirements. According to information available to the Commission, insurers in most Member States are subject to restrictions of some kind. These are either legal (as in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Austria,) or else insurers operate on the basis of voluntary agreements (the German, Irish and Italian national insurance associations have agreed not to ask for results of genetic tests. British insurers will only ask for results of these tests in excess of a certain minimum sum insured). It should be noted that a recent Parliament Resolution on supplementary health insurance(1) called on the Commission to examine the possibility of prohibiting the use of personal medical data, such as genetic typing.

However, Article 8 of directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(2) requires the consent of the data subject for the processing of genetic data concerning their health, unless a specific exception applies.

(1) A5-0266/2000, of 16.11.2000.

(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: The Dolomites as a European cultural heritage site

Does the Commission agree that it would be appropriate officially to declare the Dolomites a European cultural heritage site?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community only limited powers in the area of culture. Action by the Community must be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in a certain number of areas, including the protection, preservation and development of the cultural heritage. This objective is pursued through the Culture 2000 programme, the new framework programme to promote cultural cooperation in Europe.

Consequently, the Community is not in a position to declare that a natural site such as the Dolomites should be listed as a European cultural heritage site. Even so, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the fact of listing a site as forming part of the cultural heritage does not necessarily mean that it is protected. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, protection regimes are the exclusive responsibility of the Member States.