ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0235/02

by Karin Junker (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Future of European Documentation Centres

The network of European Documentation Centres (EDC) has been in existence for 30 years. There are now more than 500 centres both within and outside the EU. The centres have concluded an agreement with the Commission on the provision of documentation and training. In its communication on a new framework for cooperation on activities concerning the information and communication policy(1), the Commission underlines the importance of the EDC by stating, inter alia, that the EDC are key information points.

Despite the importance which the Commission rightly attaches to these centres, the post of head of unit responsible in the Directorate-General for Press and Communication has been vacant since April 2001. Complaints are also being made that, more and more frequently, even those documents listed in the monthly register of the Publications Office as being available free of charge are treated as not available for distribution to EDCs.

Can the Commission explain why the post of head of unit has remained vacant for so long, and when a fresh appointment can be expected? Why is information otherwise available free of charge not made available to the EDCs? How will the Commission involve the EDCs in the European Union's future information policy in a way commensurate with their importance, and what will it do to allay the concern felt by many staff regarding the future of the centres?

(1) (COM(2001) 354 final).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The post of head of unit was filled in January 2002 and the new head of unit is continuing to develop a strong working relationship between the European Documentation Centres (EDCs) and the Commission.

EDCs have preferential access to the Commission's data base and to all documents published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (OPOCE), free of charge. The only exception is the Official Journal for which the usual charge is made. In recent years the OPOCE has made its publications available to the EDCs on line rather than in paper form in order to enable quicker access to documents and to cut down on distribution costs.

The Commission continues to believe that the EDCs are key information points and they will certainly be an important part of the Union's future information policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1583/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Recognition of German notarial documents in Spain

It is my understanding that Spanish authorities repeatedly refuse to register deeds from German notaries with the Spanish Property Registry. The authorities refer in such cases to Resolution 3a Expte 166/99-B of 15 March 2002 of the Spanish Ministry of Justice (Ministerio de Justicia, Secretaria de Estado de Justicia, Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado).

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Does it infringe European legislation?

3. If so, what action does the Commission intend to take to rectify the situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The Commission understands that the reference ((Ministerio de Jusicia, Secretaria de Estado de Justicia, Direccion General de los Registros y del Notariado) vom 15.3.2000 3a N Expte 166/99-B.) made in the question may not refer to a law or regulation in Spain but could perhaps be an individual dossier or legal case.

The Commission has through informal contacts learned that the problem described by the Honourable Member may refer to the time before July 2000, when a new Spanish regulation on foreign investments came into force which the Commission understands may allow acceptance of deeds from other Member States.

However, as the Commission is not certain whether the Spanish system concerning recognition of deeds from other Member States is fully compatible with the EC Treaty, the Commission will write to the Spanish authorities to verify the situation. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed about the outcome of this analysis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/02

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Outbreak of rare diseases in the Milazzo industrial area

For some years now there have been an abnormal number of deaths from cancer and from chronic respiratory diseases in the industrial area of Milazzo (Sicily).

In the same industrial area, there have been recent cases of an extremely rare disease, namely amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which leads to paresis and atrophy of the muscles of the upper and lower limbs. As a result, average incidence in Italy has risen from 2 to 25 in 100 000.

Despite repeated requests, the Italian government has failed to declare the zone a high environmental risk area, and to date nothing has been done to protect the inhabitants' right to a healthy environment.

The Commission:

1. Does it believe it should carry out detailed scientific research on the links between this alarming outbreak of disease in the Milazzo area and the pollution caused by the huge local industrial complex?

2. Will it call on the Italian government to take all possible steps, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the industrial activity concerned is carried out in a fashion compatible with public health, in view of the present increasing risks?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the Union must protect citizens' right to a healthy environment.

According to the principle of subsidiarity and the competencies attributed to the Community in the area of public health the instruments available to the Commission, such as the new Public Health Programme, address issues of general concern. The situation described has, however, a local character, and the consideration of the possible steps to take in this situation is, therefore, the responsibility of the Italian authorities. These steps could include carrying out possible epidemiological or specific research studies in the area at issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Israel's destruction of EU-funded projects

Will the Commission be pressing Israel to reimburse the EU for the damage caused to EU-funded projects in the Occupied Territories?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0348/02 by Mrs Maes(1).

(1) See page 35.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2313/02

by Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Closure of Selby coalfield

With regard to the enormous public investment by the EU and other public authorities in the development of the mines and associated infrastructure in the area, what funds are now available to deal with the human consequences of the recently announced closure of Selby coalfield?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2313/02 and E-2397/02given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Selby is not included in the areas eligible for the Objective 1 or 2 structural funds programmes for the years 2000-2006 in the United Kingdom. Objective 3 funds are available (EUR 4,111,592,600) for England for the period 2000-2006.

Objective 3 funding can be used to support the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and employment as stated in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) (Article 1.3). More specifically, the scope for the European Social Fund that finances Objective 3 programmes has been set out in Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund(2) (Article 2). It refers to promoting active labour market policies, social inclusion, lifelong learning and entrepreneurship.

However, these funds are not managed by the Commission but by the governments of the Member States and, in the case of Selby, by their local government office for Yorkshire and Humberside. Applications for funding should be made to them directly or via any co-financing organisations that are active in the region. The Commission does not take any initiative in any way in the allocation and deployment of these funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Special arrangements

France, Italy and the Netherlands benefit from special arrangements as regards excise duty on mineral oils.

1. What was the basis on which the special arrangements were granted?

2. What scope is there for Austria to extend the Eco-point system?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

1. The State aid measures benefiting road transport operators in Belgium, France and Italy have been assessed and authorised by the Council in accordance with Article 88(2), third subparagraph.

2. The current ecopoints system expires on 31 December 2003. The Laeken European Council meeting of 14 and 15 December 2001 called for(1) an extension of the ecopoints system as an interim solution pending the adoption of the framework proposal on infrastructure charging. Accordingly, on 20 December 2001 the Commission submitted to the European Parliament and the Council a proposal for a Regulation establishing an ecopoints system applicable to heavy goods vehicles travelling through Austria for the year 2004(2). The European Parliament and the Council have begun their examination of this proposal.

(1) Point 58 of the conclusions.

(2) OJ C 103, 30.4.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/02

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Interpretation guide for the Wild Birds Directive

Article 16 of Directive 79/409/EEC(1) (Directive on the conservation of wild birds) provides for the establishment of a committee for the adaptation of the Directive to technical and scientific progress, consisting of representatives of NGOs and of the Member States and chaired by a Commission representative.

This committee of experts is at present helping the Commission to draw up an interpretation guide for the Directive.

In view of the approaching hunting season, there is an urgent need for this guide to be completed as quickly as possible.

1. When does the Commission intend to adopt the guide?

2. Will the guide allow Member States a certain flexibility when implementing the Directive, particularly when fixing hunting seasons?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

1. The Commission confirms that a guidance document aimed at clarifying legal and technical considerations relating to the hunting provisions of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds is currently under preparation. It is intended to finalise this document before the end of 2002.

2. The guide is aimed at assisting Member States in fulfilling their role in fixing hunting seasons under Article 7(4) of the Directive. It will also examine the possibilities for use of derogations under Article 9 of the Directive, where this can be justified in the context of the objectives and requirements of the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0824/02

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Conversion of a French driving licence in Germany

Is the Commission aware that a driving licence lawfully obtained in France can only be converted into a German driving licence without the need for a further test if its holder can prove that, at the time of obtaining the licence, he had his normal place of residence in France? Does it consider this to be compatible with the principle of freedom to provide services in the internal market?

Will it amend Article 7 of Directive 91/439/EEC(1) so that a driving licence can be obtained in another Member State irrespective of the applicant's normal place of residence?

Background:

- The holder of the driving licence has both German and French nationality. He lives mostly in Germany, but regularly (at weekends) and for longer periods (during school holidays) visits his grandparents in France, where he asked a driving school whether he could obtain a Class B driving licence and whether this could then be converted in Germany. He was told that this was possible.

- The competent district authority in Germany is refusing to convert the driving licence, arguing that its holder cannot prove that he had his place of residence in France at the time he obtained the licence or that he obtained it during a six-month period of residence abroad as a student (§4, paragraph 3, of the German Regulation on International Motor Vehicle Traffic (IntKfzVO), in conjunction with §28, paragraph 4, of the German Regulation on Driving Licences (FeV)).

- The relevant German rules would not prevent the holder of the driving licence from obtaining a licence in any other town or city in Germany, and he would not need to have his normal place of residence there. However, they do not allow him to obtain a driving licence in another Member State without having his normal place of residence in the country concerned.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

Council Directive 91/4397 EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1), which entered into force on 1 July 1996, introduced the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences. It is clear that all licences issued by Member States which are valid in the country where they were issued must be mutually recognised.

However, Article 7 of the Directive lays down several requirements for a licence to be issued, namely that applicants must have passed a test of skills and behaviour and a theoretical test, must meet medical standards and must have their normal residence in the Member State issuing the licence. Article 9 defines the concept of normal residence in detail. A driving licence may therefore be issued only to persons who have their normal residence in the Member State concerned. An exemption is provided for students who may opt to obtain a driving licence either in the Member State in which they have their normal residence or in the Member State in which they are studying.

The Commission does not intend to amend Article 7 of the above Directive at this stage.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/02

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: The Council

Can the Commission reconcile Commissioner Lamy's view that The Franco-German couple is the matrix for compromise in the European Union, the forerunner for important compromises, with the statement made by the President of the Commission's spokesman that, In our view, no state is more equal than another, and if so, how?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The comment by the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade was expressed as his personal political assessment of 50 years of the story of European integration. The President's spokesman was referring to one of the basic principles of the Union, i.e. the equal treatment of Member States. The two positions are expressed in two different contexts and for two different purposes and, therefore, they do not need to be reconciled.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0904/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: VAT rates for purchases by visually-disabled people

For the visually disabled, in the United Kingdom at least, computer software and CCTV equipment are zero-rated for Value Added Tax. Motorised contour beds are zero-rated, or incur VAT, depending on the medical condition of the purchaser. But computer hardware incurs VAT for all categories of people, whether having perfect eyesight or not.

What is the comparative situation in the other Member States?

Does the Commission agree that visually-disabled people throughout the European Union should enjoy zero-rating for both hardware and software?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Under current Community VAT legislation, the standard VAT rate should apply to computer software and hardware. Member States may, however, apply a reduced rate under category 4 of Annex H of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC(1) for Medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled, including the repair of such goods, and children's car seats. Member States may therefore allocate a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to these goods and services. It is doubtful that computer software and hardware will generally fall under this category, although a specific item such as a Braille keyboard and its related software could be covered. Closed circuit television (CCTV) would not be covered.

Moreover, under the terms of Article 28(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive, only the Member States which, on 1 January 1991, applied zero rates, which are in fact exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage, or reduced rates, to goods or services not mentioned in Annex H, may continue to apply such rates for a further transitional period.

The reason for this is that the zero rate is an exception to the normal rules which foresee that the standard VAT rate should apply to any taxable transaction, independently of the nature of the purchaser, as a general consumption tax, to avoid distortion of competition.

Current Community legislation does not make it possible to extend the scope of the zero rate.

As for the comparative situation in the other Member States, the Commission is collecting the information requested. It will communicate its findings directly to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, OJ L 15, 17.1.2002, Annex H sets a list of supplies of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1265/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Date for the Third Road Safety Action Plan

For more than a year now, various transport organisations have been wondering when the start date will be for the Commission's Third Road Safety Action Plan, since it appears that, according to some of the information received from the Commission, it might be launched in May or June 2002.

Can the Commission give a firm date for the publication of this Third Road Safety Action Plan?

Can it say in advance what will be the main points of the plan with a view to improving road safety in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

The Commission will issue a communication on the Third Road Safety Action Plan, to which the Honourable Member refers, during the third quarter of 2002.

The Commission's road safety initiatives, be they studies, subsidies or legislative proposals, will not be disrupted by this timing.

Regarding the main points of the plan, the Honourable Member should consult the White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(1), forwarded to the Council and to Parliament, and in particular Chapter I of the third part thereof.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1658/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Stray dogs in Athens

Unofficial figures put the number of stray dogs in Athens at the present time at 300 000. With the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens in view, the organising committee proposes to take them off the streets and find them alternative shelter.

Will the Commission express its concern that a viable solution should be found to this problem so that these dogs are not put down for the sake of the Olympic Games?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Although a considerable body of Union legislation for the protection of animals has been adopted this is principally concerned with animals on farms, slaughter and killing of farmed livestock, transport and laboratory animals.

Other matters, such as the control of stray dogs, remain within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

There is, in consequence, no legal basis for the Commission to intervene with the Greek authorities about this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/02

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Investigation into formation of cartel by Dutch breweries

In March 2000, the Commission, assisted by the Netherlands Competition Authority, carried out inspections at the premises of the breweries Heineken, Grolsch, Interbrew and Bavaria and the Dutch Brewers Society as part of an investigation to ascertain whether a cartel had been formed.

What further action has the Commission taken, and what stage has the investigation reached? When is it likely to be completed?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission confirms that in March 2000, on its behalf(1), the Netherlands Competition Authority, assisted by Commission officials, carried out inspections at the premises of the breweries Heineken, Grolsch, Interbrew and Bavaria and the Dutch Brewers Society as part of an investigation to ascertain whether a cartel had been formed.

On the basis of the information gathered during the inspections, requests for additional information have been sent to various operators in the Dutch market for beer, including but not limited to the companies subjected to the March 2000 inspections. The answers to these requests are currently being assessed.

The Commission's investigation is ongoing and, therefore, the final outcome of the case cannot be prejudged.

(1) Pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, OJ P 13, 21.2.1962.