ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4100/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Duty-free employment

Can the Commission indicate the number of jobs involved in the actual selling of duty-free goods in outlets in the various EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

The number of people employed in selling duty-free goods in the Community is one of the questions addressed in the study currently being conducted by the Commission in response to the request made by the EuropeanCouncil at its meeting in Vienna.

This work on employment in the duty-free trade was the subject of a communication to the Council and Parliament which the Commission adopted on 17 February 1999. The topic will be discussed at the Council meeting (economic and financial affairs) to be held on 15 March 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3265/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Proceedings in respect of irregularities at the expense of the European Social Fund

In his reply to my Question E-1007/96(1) on irregularities at the expense of the European Social Fund, Commissioner Flynn stated, inter alia, that Greece had reported 44 cases of irregularities in relation to the ESF during the period 1991 to 1994. In particular he stressed that a) "17 of the reported cases relate to one promoter. Here, the Greek authorities reported to the Commission that they have initiated judicial proceedings"; and b) "Member States are required to inform the Commission about the amounts which have been recovered arising from irregularities previously reported. Such further information has not yet been communicated by Greece."

Will the Commission say whether the above case is now closed, what judgment was handed down and what is the identity of the promoter? Has Greece provided the information requested above and, if so, what amounts are involved in each case? Have the sums of money concerned been recovered by Greece?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 1999)

The court proceedings relating to the 17 European social fund (ESF) cases reported by the Greek authorities are not terminated. As a result of these proceedings, the recovery procedures initiated by the Greek authorities are suspended.

As indicated in reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1007/96, information communicated or acquired on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(2) is covered by professional confidentiality under the provisions of Article 10 of that Regulation. In particular, the names of legal persons may only be disclosed in order to prevent or prosecute an irregularity or to establish whether an irregularity has taken place. The Commission is therefore not in a position to communicate the name of the beneficiary concerned.

The Commission would stress that the Greek authorities have not included four of the cases in the final payment applications of the operational programmes concerned, which means that the request for financial assistance in respect of these cases has been withdrawn, but have requested the Commission, on the basis of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) 4253/88(3), to suspend financial assistance until the termination of the legal procedures for 13 other cases. The Commission has already issued decisions suspending assistance in respect of two cases, whereas for the other 11 decisions are currently at the stage of preparation. The suspension of assistance involves ECU 1,18 million.

(1) OJ C 305, 15.10.1996, p. 36.

(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.

(3) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, as amended by Regulation (EEC) 2082/93, OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4051/98

by Eolo Parodi (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Italian legislation on the taxation of Italian citizens resident abroad

Article 10 of the Italian law on public financing measures for stabilisation and development, passed by the Italian Chamber of Deputies on 20 November last, stipulates that as of 1 January 1999 Italian citizens who are no longer resident in Italy and have emigrated to foreign countries or territories with special tax arrangements are liable to pay income tax in Italy.

Can the Commission shed light on the legal and fiscal compatibility of this double taxation with existing bilateral agreements and European case law on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 1999)

According to the Commission's information, the tax legislation in question provides that Italian citizens who have transferred their residence to a foreign country or territory with special tax arrangements must provide the Finance Department with proof that they are no longer resident in Italy for tax purposes.

The new rules reverse the burden of proof; under the previous legislation, the administration had to prove that the taxable person was still resident in Italy.

The Commission views the new Italian legislation as a measure to combat tax evasion and is unable to see, at first sight, how it would infringe Community law. Furthermore, to the best of the Commission's knowledge, the Italian authorities have not yet let it be known what they consider to be a foreign country or territory with special tax arrangements. However, the attitude of the Italian tax authorities hitherto would suggest that they do not mean the Member States. The Commission will keep track of how the authorities in Italy implement this law.

With regard to the second matter raised by the Honourable Members, i.e. the compatibility of the measure with tax agreements, very often there are no agreements with countries with special tax arrangements. However, where such agreements do exist and where a person is deemed to be resident for tax purposes under the laws of both countries, the agreements generally establish residence in one country for tax purposes, so that the agreement can be implemented (see Article 4 of the OECD's model agreement).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3406/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Humanitarian aid for the victims of the Atiworo fireball

On 17 October 1998, the Atiworo fireball disaster took the lives of over seven hundred Nigerians.

It is estimated that some 1000 more are suffering in hospitals woefully unequipped to deal with their injuries. Many of those critically ill who were taken to hospital have since been spirited away by friends and relatives for fear that the victims may be arrested.

Has the Commission offered to provide medical aid and assistance so that the authorities in Nigeria may help the Atiworo victims?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

From the moment the explosion occurred, the Commission's Delegation followed very closely the development of the situation and kept the Commission duly informed.

Necessities were covered through bilateral donations in the sectors of emergency medical assistance, food and domestic items. The Commission has not received any formal request for funding either from any agency, non-governmental organisation (NGO) or from the Nigerian authorities. Furthermore, according to the Regional Delegate of the International Federation of the Red Cross, the Nigerian Red Cross machinery at the scene of the disaster is adequate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3546/98

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Extra US government support to farmers

The Commission will undoubtedly be aware of the extra support the US government is giving to its farmers, the Farm Bill notwithstanding, in response to the extremely difficult circumstances to which they have been reduced by low prices on the world market.

1. Does the Commission consider that this extra support complies with World Trade Organisation rules?

2. What conclusions does the Commission draw from the granting of this extra support to farmers in the US in relation to its own proposals on Common Agricultural Policy reform, or in relation to extra support to the pig-farming sector, having regard to the extremely precarious circumstances to which it has been reduced at the present time?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

1. Members of the World trade organization (WTO) have undertaken to reduce domestic support in accordance with quantified commitments. However, subsidies complying with specific criteria laid down in the agreement on agriculture (so-called "green" and "blue" box measures) are not subject to this reduction commitment. The United States measures will need to be reported to the World trade organization which will enable them to be examined in the light of their nature and the United States total support reduction commitment but, at this stage, it appears unlikely that they will involve any breach of that commitment.

2. This United States measure is essentially a short term reaction to a specific situation and does not call into question the Agenda 2000 proposals which have long term objectives. The Commission has taken measures to alleviate the problems in the pigmeat market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Export incentives in Turkey

The Turkish Government has recently announced the introduction of an export incentive scheme consisting of:

- funding for export companies formed by joint ventures which open branches abroad,

- payments of $ 400 000 to $ 900 000 for export operations resulting from mergers and

- additional export subsidies.

Since such subsidies infringe competition rules, are detrimental to undertakings and products in the Member States and are contrary to Turkey's undertakings to the European Union in connection with the Customs Union:

- can the Commission confirm the above?

- is the payment of export subsidies in accordance with the spirit and letter of Customs Union?

- in any event, the EU must be informed in advance of any export subsidies. Was this done?

- what steps will the Commission take to put an end to measures by the Turkish Government which infringe the Customs Union agreement?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1999)

The Commission has recently been informed about the adoption in July 1997 by the Turkish government of a communiqué 97/9 on supporting the activities of opening and operating offices and stores and promoting trademarks abroad. This communiqué contains in particular a provision for the support by the Foreign Trade Undersecretariat of part of the establishment, operation and promotion expenses of companies, stores, warehouses and branch offices already established and operating or to be established abroad.

The Commission is examining the conformity of these provisions with the rules established by the customs union Decision 1/95 and especially its Article 34 on state aids. If these provisions were considered as incompatible with these rules, the Commission would ask for immediate consultation in the customs union joint committee under Article 38 of the customs union Decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/98

by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission

(29 January 1998)

Subject: Language use in the Official Journal

Official Journal L 328 of 28 November 1997 contains a list of contracting authorities that are subject to the agreement concerning the award of public service contracts. On page 10, a list relating to Belgium appears only in French.

The Commission is aware of my concern with language use. Can I be informed why the above list appeared only in French? Am I to conclude that Dutch and German speakers are not subject to this procurement legislation?

Answer given by MrMonti on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Imports of foodstuffs from Estonia

In Estonia, as in the other Baltic countries, the agriculture and foodstuffs sectors have been extremely hard hit by the crisis in Russia. Exports of foodstuffs from those countries have virtually come to a halt, since they have very few outlets outside the countries of the former Soviet Union.

How does the Commission plan to investigate the scope for increasing imports of foodstuffs from the Baltic countries into the EU? What support does the foodstuffs sector in the Baltic countries receive and would it be possible to provide support through the existing aid programmes? What have the major obstacles been to the expansion of EU foodstuffs imports from the Baltic countries?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The Commission is well aware of the consequences of the crisis in Russia on the international trade in agricultural products. Estonia and other Central European countries, as well as the Community itself are affected.

Community assistance through the Phare programme has helped the Central European countries to restructure their economies and increase their competitiveness in Community markets. This combined with the liberalisation of trade under the Europe agreement has resulted in a reorientation of trade towards the Community which has made the Central European countries less vulnerable to the Russian crisis. In Agenda 2000, the Commission proposed that, in addition to Phare, pre-accession aid should be reinforced through the annual provision of an additional 500 million euros for agricultural development, and 1,000 million euros for structural investment.

In addition to increased pre-accession assistance, the Commission proposed to the Council to start negotiations with the associated countries from Central Europe, with a view to granting additional reciprocal concessions for trade in agricultural and processed agricultural products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/98

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Safety of small children on board aircraft

There are serious shortcomings in safety arrangements for small children travelling with European airlines. Children under two generally sit on their parent's lap, while older children can only be fitted with adults' seat belts, which are completely unsuitable for them. So children are inadequately protected, or not protected at all, in the event of turbulence or accidents. In the US there already exists a variety of restraint systems specially designed for children. Moreover, spare belts which can be attached to adult passengers' lap belts are prohibited in the US but permitted in Europe, although they can cause severe internal injuries in children.

1. What is the Commission's opinion of this state of affairs?

2. Does the Commission intend to propose European rules to ensure the safety of children on board aircraft? If not, why?

3. Is the Commission considering prohibiting airlines from carrying children unless they have a seat of their own? If not, why?

4. Would the Commission consider allowing selected child restraint systems designed for cars to be used in aircraft for a transitional period? If not, why?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question E-2751/98 by Mrs Breyer(1) on the same subject.

The Commission recognises that the protection of children, and particularly of infants, is not sufficiently addressed by present aviation safety standards. That is why the Commission launched an important study called "European specification for infant and child restraint devices" in which the feasibility of improved restraint systems will be assessed and a suggestion for a "European specification for infant passengers on aircraft" will be developed.

The Commission will submit the results of the project to the Joint Aviation Authorities of Member States and, if appropriate, invite this body to revise existing specifications for the safe use of such restraint systems. This would of course also lead to a revision of the existing Community legislation dealing with the same subject, the airworthiness codes contained in annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation(2).

Until the results of these activities are available, the Commission would not wish to prejudge whether it is appropriate to prohibit the transport of infants that do not have a seat to themselves or whether it is appropriate to authorise restraint systems which are currently used in cars.

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 134.

(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4077/98

by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Better lawmaking: a shared responsibility

On 2 December the Commission announced that it is "planning to withdraw around 90 proposals which are no longer relevant for various reasons, including subsidiarity".

Can the Commission now supply the questioner with a list of the proposals that it is planning to withdraw; can it state when this list will become official, and, when it does, will it undertake to publish the list in the Official Journal?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

The list to which the Honourable Member refers was sent to Parliament and the Council on 17 December 1998(1).

The relevant decision will shortly be published in the Official Journal.

(1) SEC(98) 2143.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3866/98

by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Subject: Age discrimination and Article 13 of the Treaty

Can the Commission indicate to Parliament the results of the Commission's conference in Vienna on the implementation of the new Treaty Article 13 on discrimination and the next steps proposed by the Commission? In particular, what specific action is the Commission considering taking to combat age discrimination and implement the provisions of Article 13?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

In its social action programme 1998-2000(1), the Commission announced its intention of exploring the new scope for action opened by Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

A major European conference was held in Vienna on 3 and 4 December 1998 on the implementation of Article 13. The aim of the conference was to launch a debate with those involved in anti-discrimination policies at European and national level (European institutions, Member States, non governmental organizations (NGOs), social partners, and academics) to identify the way forward on this article.

One of the main conclusions of the conference was the need for Community action to supplement what Member States are doing to fight discrimination. At the end of the conference the Commission announced its intention of presenting, after the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, an Article 13 anti-discrimination package.

The Commission will ensure that whatever proposals are put forward take proper account of relevant issues related to preventing and combating age discrimination.

(1) COM(98) 259 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Solid waste dumping in the Kouroupitos river bed at Hania

The bed of the Kouroupitos at Hania has become a solid waste dump, with an obvious impact on the local environment. The Commission started procedures in 1992, with a view to prodding the Greek authorities into action to protect it, but with little effect, as they have done practically nothing in the matter.

What does the Commission intend to do to bring an end to the despoliation of this river bed, and what will be the economic consequences for Greece of a continuing display of indifference by its competent authorities to a matter in which it should have long ago complied with the Commission's recommendations?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

In its judgment of 7 April 1992 the Court of Justice noted that, since it had not taken the action needed in order to ensure that, in the Khania region, refuse and also toxic, dangerous wastes were disposed of without endangering human health and without damaging the environment and, since, for that region, it had not drawn up plans or programmes with a view to the disposal of refuse and of toxic and dangerous wastes, Greece had not met the requirements laid down in Articles 4 and 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC on wastes(1) and Articles 6 and 12 of Directive 78/319/EEC on toxic and dangerous wastes(2).

Noting that Greece had still not taken the action needed in order to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice referred to above, the Commission brought a further action before the Court on 17 November 1997 on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. The matter is currently pending. It is for the Court to recognise the Member States' failure to comply and, in its judgment, to set the amount of the penalty to be paid by the Member State concerned.

The Greek authorities have sent the Commission a study that they carried out in order to draw up waste management plans for the Khania region. However, according to information received by the Commission, the procedure for adopting the management plans has still not been finalised.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978.