ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2714/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Average cost of capital in the euro zone

Will the Commission please estimate whether there has been a reduction in the average cost of capital in real terms to euro-zone enterprises as a result of the introduction of the euro and the consequent growth of the euro-denominated corporate bond market?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The euro bond market is undergoing fundamental changes as a consequence of the introduction of the euro, technological change and globalisation. The introduction of the euro unified eleven national markets into a single, fundamentally more homogeneous, euro area bond market. These features have been the driving force behind the developments in the euro bond market, creating greater transparency, enhancing competition among financial institutions, and promoting the development of a broader and more liquid bond market which foster securitisation and disintermediation. These factors all work to enhance the availability and lower the cost of capital to euro area enterprises.

1999 saw a tremendous increase in private sector issuance of debt, in particular in the corporate bond sector where issuance increased almost four-fold compared to 1998. The significance of developments on corporate bond markets stems from the fact that the Community financial system is predominantly bank-oriented, as opposed to the more market-oriented system in the United States. The development of the corporate bond market, providing an alternative to traditional bank financing, is greatly facilitating the extensive and on-going restructuring of European industry. The growth of the corporate bond market will therefore have important consequences for the financing of the economy in general and mergers and acquisitions activity and corporate restructuring in particular.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1621/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Complaint of unfair competition against German Postal Service

European rules on competition stipulate that postal services may not use their income from reserved services to cross-subsidise operations in sectors that have been opened up to competition. In Germany, the German Postal Service (Deutsche Post AG) enjoys a legal monopoly in the standard postal service. The parcels service, however, operates as a non-reserved facility. By contrast with the ordinary postal service, which makes a profit, the parcels service has been loss-making since 1984. In 1994 the first of a series of complaints was lodged with the European Commission alleging unfair competition.

On 21 July 1999 the Commission brought proceedings against the German Postal Service alleging unlawful government support. The Commission's judgment in this matter will be a test of the appropriateness and credibility of the rules relating to the postal sector and government support. If state support distorts competition, the ultimate sanction guaranteed by compliance with European rules is repayment of the unlawful state support.

In other cases involving Germany, the European Commission has applied the rules relating to government support strictly, requiring German companies to repay unlawful state support.

Will the Commission be able to resist pressure from Germany if a complaint is lodged against the German Postal Service and continue to uphold the same resolute position?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1621/00 and E-1646/00 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission decided on 20 July 1999 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty in respect of possible state aid granted to Deutsche Post AG.

The procedure covers the whole range of state aid allegations concerning Deutsche Post AG.

The Commission is currently examining the observations received from the German Government and interested parties. Since the examination is still pending no indications about the possible outcome of the investigations can be given at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1905/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Marriage contracts

Can the Commission confirm that marriage contracts validated and signed under one Member State's laws are not valid in the courts of another?

Can the Commission give the European Parliament an assurance that it will introduce steps to provide legal protection to citizens in such situations?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Honourable Member has asked the Commission to confirm that marriage contracts validated and signed under the law of one Member State are not valid before the courts of another Member State.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that at the moment there are no Community rules applicable to marriage contracts and matrimonial property arrangements. The Brussels and Rome Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Civil and Commercial Matters exclude matrimonial property arrangements from their scope. Similarly, the regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters excludes marriage contracts and matrimonial property arrangements. However, the Commission communication proposing a scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice(1), provides for the drawing up by April 2004 of a preliminary study on jurisdiction and applicable law, for matrimonial property arrangements.

It follows then that the validity of marriage contracts concluded in another Member State is currently governed by the national rules, notably under private international law, of each Member State.

Moreover, the Commission would point out that there is a Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes concluded under the aegis of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, but it has been ratified by only three Member States, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

(1) COM(2000) 167 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Use of hired cars from third countries

In its reply to question H-1190/98(1) the Commission stated its intention to settle this matter during the first half of this year (i.e. 1999).

Was it successful?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament No 4-531 (January 1999).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1662/1999 of 28 July 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code(1) which came into force on 5 August 1999, provided a solution to the problem raised by Question H-1190/98 during the January 1999 part-session question time(2).

In line with the new provision, the customs authorities may authorise natural persons established in the customs territory of the Community to use in that territory a vehicle hired under a written contract outside it. This authorisation is subject to the condition that countries where the vehicles are hired and registered authorise temporary importation under comparable circumstances for vehicles hired and registered in the customs territory of the Community. The vehicle shall be re-exported or returned to a car-hire company established in the customs territory of the Community for subsequent re-exportation within eight days of the entry into force of the contract.

(1) OJ L 197, 29.7.1999.

(2) Debates of the European Parliament No 4-531 (January 1999.).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Descriptions of eggs

There has been discussion in Sweden of whether Gröna Konsum is entitled to sell eggs described as battery eggs, free-range eggs and organic eggs. Konsum oversees its suppliers very strictly and carries out a separate salmonella control. The Swedish Food Administration (SFA), however, claims that the EU has ruled that no descriptions may be used other than its own, i.e. battery eggs, deep litter eggs, maximum seven hens per square metre, deep litter eggs, more than seven hens per square metre and semi-intensive eggs. The SFA claims that Konsum cannot use its own descriptions of eggs but must comply with the relevant EU regulation. Does the Commission share the SFA's point of view?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

Yes, Article 18(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91(1) on common egg marketing standards, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1221/92(2) provides that no other terms except those set out in that Article may be used in order to indicate types of farming on eggs and egg packs if the relevant conditions laid down in Annex II of that Regulation are fulfilled.

These indications, decided in close cooperation with national administrations, aim to inform consumers in clear and unequivocal terms. The common egg marketing standards have however not laid down terms or production conditions for organic eggs.

(1) OJ L 121, 16.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 218, 1.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1389/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Increased involvement of women in the decision-taking process

Women are still very under-represented in decision-taking positions in both the private and public sectors: in the Commission, for instance, women account for a mere 19 % of all category A officials, while in the private sector, and notably the financial sector, the equivalent figure is just 8,2 %.

The reasons for this include the shortage or high cost of childcare facilities and the fact that women are still very often confronted with the dual burden of job and family/household.

How does the Commission intend to persuade the Member States in their future national employment programmes to take practical steps to remedy this situation and in particular to make available inexpensive childcare services and to raise public awareness of the need for men and women to share household chores evenly?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The reconciliation of private and professional life has long been a priority in the Commission's gender equality policy. The European social fund and, in particular, the Employment NOW Community initiative (1994-1999) as well as the guidelines for the new EQUAL Community initiative(1) explicitly refer to the necessity for child care in order to facilitate the reconciliation of family and work.

Council Decision 2000/228/EC of 13 March 2000 on guidelines for Member States' employment policies for the year 2000(2) in particular guideline 21 calls on Member States to design, implement and promote family friendly policies, including affordable, accessible and high quality care services for children and other dependants, as well as parental and other leave schemes. The Commission continues to monitor the implementation of this guideline in the national action plans and will should it discover inadequate implementation make recommendations to the Member States to improve the situation.

Under Council Decision 95/593/EC of 22 December 1995 on a medium-term action programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996-2000)(3), the Commission supported projects aimed at encouraging men to take on care responsibilities.

(1) COM(2000) 853.

(2) OJ L 72, 21.3.2000.

(3) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Driving licences and diabetes

The British Government has interpreted Directive 91/439/EEC(1) in such a way as to require it to ban virtually all people who treat their diabetes with insulin from driving passenger-carrying vehicles and vehicles exceeding 3,5 tonnes in weight.

1. Is the Commission aware if any other Member States have introduced such restrictive measures?

The British Government argues that its policy derives from long-standing expert assessment of the dangers associated with the driving of larger vehicles by insulin-treated diabetics. However, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reported in February 2000 that the source of this evidence could not be identified.

2. Is the Commission aware of any evidence which might support the interpretation of the Directive being applied by the British Government?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.1.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1), stipulates in Annex III point 10 that:

Only in very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to, or renewed for, applicants or drivers in this group suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment, and then only where duly justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular medical check-ups.

This requires that people with diabetes mellitus should not normally be allowed to drive lorries or buses, as there is a risk that they will suffer from blackouts. If this occurs while the individual concerned is driving such large vehicles, there is an obvious risk of a major accident occurring.

The medical provisions laid dawn in Annex III of the Directive are based on the expert advice of medical experts from across the Community.

As regards the interpretation of the Directive the detailed rules applicable for defining very exceptional cases are a matter for each Member State to set as they see fit. However, it is clear that this cannot be interpreted as meaning that all insulin-dependent diabetics may drive lorries or buses.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1511/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Domain names

What steps are being taken at European level to prevent the registration of generic names as domain names, a practice which leads to unfair advantages for certain companies and individuals?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of the difficulties experienced within the Community in combating speculative and abusive registration of names, thus including generic names as domain names.

As announced in the communication from the Commission on the organisation and management of the Internet(1), the Commission will initiate public consultation on the principles against speculative and abusive registration of names.

(1) COM(2000) 202 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1584/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Skiing accident in Meribel, France

Is it the Commission's view that the International Ski Federation (ISF) Rules for the Conduct of Skiers have legal force in the European Union? In particular, are they equally applicable in France and in the United Kingdom?

With reference to cooperation in judicial matters and single market rules on insurance, is it the Commission's view that liability for an accident between two British skiers, which occurred in France, could be properly decided in the British courts or that a French insurance company with which one of the skiers was insured could require the proceedings to be conducted in a French court?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

The Commission has no information on the International ski federation (ISF) rules for the conduct of skiers and is therefore not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member's first question.

Questions of jurisdiction in civil matters are governed, within the Member States, by the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, as amended. In principle, defendants are to be sued in the country where they are domiciled. However, the Convention permits a number of alternatives. In the case of tortious liability, the plaintiff has the option of suing the defendant in the country where the harmful event took place. The Brussels Convention provides also for

specific rules concerning jurisdiction in insurance matters (Articles. 8-12 a). According to these rules, in case of liability insurance, the insurer covering the civil liability risk may also be sued in the court where the injured party has brought proceedings against the insured party, when the law of that country permits it (article 10, 1).

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Convention would permit proceedings to be brought either in the United Kingdom or in France.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2067/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Excessive certification requirements thwart crockery imports into Turkey

Since July 1999 Turkey has been demanding presentation of a Turkish certificate for crockery imports. As part of the goods checking process, samples are taken from each shipment, which are not returned, and charges are demanded. This amounts to an import restriction and de facto imposition of an import levy of around 20 % of the value of the goods.

1. Is the Commission aware of this procedure by the Turkish authorities for imports of household and hotel crockery?

2. Does the Commission take the view that the Turkish import regulation adversely affects the Association Agreement between the EU and Turkey?

3. How does the Commission propose to deal with this procedure?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The problem referred to by the Honourable Member has been brought to the Commission's attention by representatives of the private sector.

The Commission considers that these measures represent a barrier to trade and run counter to Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union(1).

The Commission therefore contacted the Turkish authorities in January of this year in order to settle this problem within the Joint Committee on Customs Union.

(1) OJ L 35, 13.2.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1859/00

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

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Catalan

Article 22 of Law 1/1998 on linguistic policy, adopted by the Catalan Parliament on 7 January, considers that universities and higher education institutions need to adopt appropriate measures to guarantee and encourage the Catalan language in all spheres relating to their teaching, non-teaching and research activities. The Catalan universities duly adopted their respective rules on linguistic usage.

A series of charges brought by the Asociación de Profesores para la Democracia (Teachers for Democracy Association) and Convivencia Cívica Catalana (Catalan Civil Good-fellowship, a body chaired by Mr Alejo Vidal-Quadras) have led to the temporary suspension of the Rovira y Virgili University's rules on linguistic usage by the courts on the grounds that they may be unconstitutional.

What is the Commission's view of the legal proceedings which have been brought against enactments and individuals who doing no more than implementing the desire to be able to use Catalan on a normal basis in a country in which it has been legally acknowledged, both in the Statute on the Autonomy of Catalunya and the Statute of the Rovira i Virgili University, that the official language is Catalan?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

Respecting the cultural and linguistic diversity of Member States is a principle of prime importance for European integration. However, the Commission has no power to intervene in internal judicial proceedings and cannot give an opinion on such proceedings in a Member State in a field not governed by Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Use of tuna loin quotas.



Official Journal 072 E , 06/03/2001 P. 0158 - 0158



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission (21 June 2000) Subject: Use of tuna loin quotas In its reply to Question E-1087/00(1) the Commission invites the author thereof to make a careful reading of the study which the Commission has had drawn up on the topic. Irrespective of the fact that a careful reading of the study is what prompted not only Question E-1087/00 but also the other three which the author has tabled on the same topic, and irrespective of the fact that the doubts expressed in those questions have occurred not only to the author thereof but also to the Community fisheries and processing sector, to certain representatives of ACP and GSP countries and even to other MEPs (as illustrated by the documentation provided by the Commission itself), the Commission's reply adds an interesting item of information as regards the use by the Community industry of tuna loin quotas. However, since what is no doubt a transcription error has occurred which cannot be clarified solely by means of a careful reading of the study which the Commission has had drawn up, would the Commission say what it means when it states that the 1997 tuna loin quota was used at a rate of 56 % by Italy and 44 % by Italy? (1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 121. Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (24 July 2000) The Commission has already apologised to the Honourable Member for the error in the answer it addressed to her and informed her that this should have referred to Spain (56 %) and Italy (44 %).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Organisation for tuna fishing in the Western Pacific

Negotiations are being conducted with a view to setting up an organisation for tuna fishing in the Western Pacific, in which the Community is not involved, despite the interest of our fishing sector. However, the Community has a special relationship with the countries in the region, in which it also has substantial fishery interests.

Does the Commission intend to join the negotiations for the creation of this new regional organisation? Why has it not yet done so?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The Commission has been invited to participate as an observer at the 4th, 5th and 6th meetings of the Multilateral High Level Conference (MHLC) on the conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Central and Western Pacific.

At the fifth meeting of the conference the Commission obtained the inclusion in the draft text of the future convention of provisions allowing the future membership of the Community to the future organisation.

At the last session of the conference, held in Honolulu from 12-19 April 2000, the Commission requested its inclusion, as a full participant, at the next step of the process, that is, the interim arrangement that will be set up to cover the period between signature of the Convention (in September 2000) and its entry into force (likely to take two to three years). This request, however, was not accepted by the participants to the conference, on the basis of the resolution adopted in 1999 to the effect of excluding new participants in the MHLC process.

The Commission is currently examining possible initiatives to try to persuade MHLC participants of the need and legitimacy of the Community's full participation in the interim regime of the MHLC process.