ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0280/00

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

(3 February 2000)

Subject: Directive on renewable energy

The Commission has repeatedly failed to submit a proposal for a directive on access for producers of renewable energy to the internal market in electricity, since no dialogue has been entered into with the

renewable energy industry and its representatives. Moreover, SMEs in the sector and Member States with more generous support systems are strongly opposed to the idea. Does the Commission therefore intend to consult representatives from the renewable energy sector as well as energy producers in the Member States, in order to avoid a fresh confrontation between the advocates of state support and those who favour harmonisation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

In March 1999 the Commission presented a working paper Electricity from renewable energy sources and the internal electricity market(1). The objective of this paper was to highlight the numerous options available to the Community in addressing the issue of renewable sources electricity generation in the internal electricity market. Prior to the publication of this paper, the Commission had undertaken extensive consultations involving all parties concerned, including representatives of all sectors of the renewable industry (wind, solar, hydro, biomass). Furthermore, the energy consultative committee, in which the renewable industry is represented, had been formally consulted on the issue and gave an opinion.

Following the publication of the above working document, the Commission has again received numerous comments on the issue from the renewable industry and other interested parties, further investigations were made and discussions held. Indeed, in the working paper the Commission made it clear that it would make a final decision on the issue only in the light of the reactions to the working paper. Furthermore, the energy consultative committee has again discussed the issue in depth and will give a formal opinion in the near future. Intensive discussion in the working group of the committee involving all sectors of the renewable industry have already taken place.

When taking a final decision on the issue, the Commission will take all views into account, including those expressed by the renewable industry, which are of particular relevance and importance in this respect.

(1) SEC(1999) 470.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/00

by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Swedish edition of Infeuro

What does it cost to publish the Swedish edition of Infeuro?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1411/00, E-1495/00 and E-1496/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The InfEuro newsletter is published in 11 languages and has a total circulation of 380 000. Some 7 000 copies are printed for the Swedish edition. The cost of publishing and distributing one issue is as follows: 65 000 for pre-press work, 45 000 for printing and 70 000 for distribution (mailing lists). In other words, the total cost per issue is 180 000 (the single unit cost per issue is 0,47).

With regard to overall budgetary aspects, the Honourable Member may refer to the tables sent directly to him and to the Parliament's General Secretariat. These tables show the details of agreements concluded with the Member States which decided to enter into partnerships with the Union, the breakdown by category of the cost of activities planned in 2000 and the breakdown of expenditure in the previous two financial years.

A list of all the main products developed can be found in the annex to the Commission Communication on communications strategy in the last phases of the completion of EMU(1), approved on 2 February 2000.

(1) COM(2000) 57 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/00

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Compatibility with Community law of a Danish law on the levying of capital gains tax in the event of transfer to another Member State

A Danish law dating back to 1987 stipulates that the earnings from shares belonging to Danish citizens who move to another Member State are to be taxed. This means that people who are obliged to live and work in another EU country for professional or other reasons are subject to discrimination.

1. Is paragraph 13a of the law on capital gains from shares (Lovbekendtgorelse 1987-11-05 No 698, Karnovs Lovsamling 6 (1988), p. 5880) compatible with Articles 43, 56, 18 and 12 of the EC Treaty?

2. If it is not, what steps will the Commission take to make Denmark comply with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the Danish tax rules according to which non-realised capital gains resulting from shares are taxed, if a person leaves the country. Similar rules exist in Germany, France and Austria.

The Danish law subjects capital gains on shares realised in Denmark to tax. In order to treat the taxpayer who leaves the Member State for a Member State where capital gains are not taxed, at equal footing, his latent tax liability with regard to capital gains is assessed when he leaves Denmark. However, this tax is not immediately due, but becomes payable only once the capital gains are realised, which means that the shares in question are effectively disposed of. The tax is assessed on the base of the capital gains calculated at the moment of leaving Denmark, but if the value of the shares goes down later, Denmark allows a new calculation of the tax so that only the effective capital gains are taxed. Moreover, tax on capital gains levied in the new Member State of residence are fully credited against the Danish tax liability.

It is true that the tax assessed must be guaranteed by the taxpayer on exit from Danmark, but the Danish authorities accept (part of) the shares as security.

There appears to be no material difference in the tax treatment of Danish residents and others who leave Denmark.

At any rate, the Commission will further examine the compatibility of the Danish rules with Community law, because a complaint on the same matter has been lodged with it and is currently under consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1376/00

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of a pension to an EU national moving to Australia

A Dutch citizen by birth moved to England, married and took up British nationality in 1954. Now, in her 70s and divorced, she wishes to move to Australia to live with her children. Her UK pension will be frozen at the rate when she leaves the UK but will continue to be paid. However, the small pension to which she is currently entitled from Holland will cease should she move out of the EU to Australia.

An unsatisfactory explanation is that the Dutch old age pension started in 1957, which was after the date when this lady left the Netherlands, and therefore she does not qualify for her pension under Dutch law but only under European law.

Is this not a case of discrimination on the grounds of nationality? Does the Commission agree that EU pension rights should be equally applicable to all our citizens everywhere?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Honourable Member raises a question concerning the payment of an old-age pension under the legislation of the Netherlands to a former Dutch national who acquired British nationality and now intends to take up residence in Australia.

Under Community law there is no unified European social security system. Each Member State is responsible for its own social security system and decides which benefits shall be provided, the conditions for eligibility and the value of these benefits.

There are, however, Community provisions for the co-ordination of these systems in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1), and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(2), in order to ensure that migrant workers and members of their families do not lose their social security protection when they move within the Community.

Therefore, the export of benefits to persons who are not resident within the Union does not fall under the scope of these regulations.

The question raised by the Honourable Member is a matter to be dealt with solely under Dutch national legislation.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 as last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0836/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Environmental damage inflicted on the Danube and neighbouring regions by NATO bombing

The Romanian Minister for the Environment has alleged that the Danube has suffered greater environmental damage from NATO bombing which destroyed bridges, oil refineries and chemicals plants than from the recent cyanide spill. The environmental, economic and cultural damage to the Danube and the local population extends beyond Serbia and affects all the regions through which the Danube flows and will have distressing consequences for many years to come.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the extent of the damage and, if so, what measures it proposes to assist the countries concerned, so that the environment, the economy and the culture of this sensitive region rapidly recover?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

During the Kosovo conflict the Commission financed a preliminary assessment of the environmental impact of the conflict. This was performed by the Regional environment centre (REC) for Central and Eastern Europe and is available on their Internet site (http://www.rec.org). A further, more detailed assessment of the environmental consequences of the war was performed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Balkan Task Force and is also available at their site on the Internet (http://www.grid.unep.ch). Both reports concluded that the Kosovo conflict did not cause an environmental catastrophe affecting the Balkan region as a whole.

Looking ahead, the Commission is supporting a regional environmental reconstruction programme in the framework of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe that will assist in environmental reconstruction and capacity building across the Balkan Region as a whole.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0494/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Problem of security and jurisdiction

In its reply to Question No E-2160/99(1), the Commission states that the objective put forward by the European Council in Tampere to provide citizens with a high level of safety shall be done by, inter alia, developing common action among Member States in the field of police cooperation and that common action in the field of police cooperation shall include cooperation and joint initiatives in, among others, the use of equipment. The Commission nevertheless adds that any action developed in this context shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. The Commission concludes that the measures proposed by the questioner seem to fall under the said responsibilities of Member States.

1. Can the Commission specify whether such measures seem to fall or do actually fall under the responsibilities of Member States?

2. In the latter case, how can the different measures in each country regulating the use of certain self-defence devices, such as sprays, be reconciled?

3. How can it be claimed that a single market exists when certain self-defence devices used and sold in France, for example, are not allowed to cross the border into Italy, where they are banned?

4. What impression can citizens have of the EU if they use a device which is legal in France, but are considered criminals when they use that same device in Italy?

5. What proposals does the Commission intend to make to overcome these inconsistencies and to speed up the creation of a common area of freedom, security and justice?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 61.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission does not currently have the intention to take up an initiative to harmonise Member States' legislations on the use of self-defence devices such as sprays or low-voltage electrical fences, the use of which is allowed in some Member States. The Commission considers that it is for each Member State to regulate the use of such devices in its own territory, in so far as the maintenance of public order or the safeguard of public security is at stake.

According to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, the provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters of Title VI shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

The Commission takes the position that the application of Article 33 in this context does not affect the implementation of the EU Treaty on the basis of the Vienna action plan and the political guidelines and concrete objectives agreed by the Tampere European Council, which will provide European citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/00

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Inability to provide data on tuna fillet imports

When the Thai authorities asked the European Union to open a new quota to allow 8 000 tonnes of products to be imported under tariff heading 1604.14.00 (tinned tuna and tuna fillets), at a time when the Community tuna fillet market may be considered to be adequately supplied, as a study commissioned by the Commission has just shown, I asked the Commission various questions in Written Question E-2310/99(1), including the amounts of tuna fillets exported by Thailand to the EU under the last two quotas opened, and the names of the Community companies which have been buying them.

Astonishingly, the Commission replied that it was unable to provide the information requested, since because the trading activities of private companies were involved, the Commission had no data.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

- how can it possibly ask the Council to open tuna fillet quotas year after year when it possesses no data whatsoever on either the quantities of this product entering the Union under the quotas in question, or the Member State companies importing it?

- what sort of checks does the Commission actually carry out on these imports, which are of direct relevance to a major Community industry in which large numbers of jobs and major investments are at stake?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 95.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

In Written Question E-2310/99(1), the Honourable Member only requested information about private companies in Thailand (a list of Thai companies which export tuna fillets to the Community and the amounts exported by each company) and within the Community (a list of Community companies which import these products, and an indication of their location).

As the Commission stated in its answer, it is unable to provide information about the trading activities of private companies since it does not possess such data.

When drafting proposals for quotas for fishery products, the Commission refers in particular to global data regarding the utilisation of these quotas and to requests made by the authorities in the Member States.

As regards checks on imports to which these quotas apply, the Commission and the Member States apply the provisions laid out in Articles 308a to 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(2).

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 95.

(2) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Unemployment figures for Greece

Under the title EUROPE WEEKLY SELECTED STATISTICS No 1128, Europe of 20 December 1999 published information from the Eurostat News Release No 120/99 concerning unemployment figures in the European Union Member States, Japan and the USA. However, as we have repeatedly pointed out, these statistics do not include figures for unemployment in Greece. In a previous answer to my Written Question E-1448/97(1), the Commission indicated that as from 1998, the National Statistical Service of Greece is planning to implement a continuous labour force survey which will provide quarterly unemployment rates.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. Why were the unemployment figures for Greece still missing?

2. Has Greece undertaken to provide accurate and reliable information concerning unemployment figures to the various European Union publications and services?

3. What action is it taking to ensure that prompt and reliable information concerning unemployment figures in Greece appears in its various publications?

4. Has funding been provided for services in Greece to record and publish unemployment figures and if so from which programmes?

(1) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 133.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

In application of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 on the organization of a labour force sample survey in the Community(1), the National statistical service of Greece carried out a continuous labour force survey (LFS) providing quarterly results.

Community financial support for the transition to a continous LFS was provided in 1997, 1998 and 1999 to the National statistical service of Greece under the Greek action plan for statistics.

Quarterly data of unemployment rates for Greece are now available for the four quarters of 1998. However, in order to obtain seasonally adjusted unemployment rates it is necessary to have quarterly data collected for at least a three year period before seasonally adjusted series can be published.

In the meantime, annual data on unemployment rates available up to 1998 from the labour force survey are published in the joint employment report 1999 adopted by the Council on 29 November 1999(2).

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

(2) http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/main.cfm?LANG=1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/00

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Social and economic effects which the reduction in export refunds will have on the production and processing sectors

What effects will the reduction in, or the withdrawal of, export refunds have on the production or processing sector responsible for each of the various agricultural products affected? Have any plans been made for alternative arrangements or for aid of any kind to soften the resulting impact?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the specific measures announced by the Commission in its communication to the Council(1) and to the fixing of export refunds for products not covered by Annex I to the Treaty for which the rates were reduced by 4,5 % on a flat-rate basis as from 1 November 1999.

This reduction is to be replaced by the application of the abovementioned specific measures, which are intended to ensure that refunds continue to be made for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty within the framework of the budget appropriations agreed by the budgetary authority.

The specific measures comprise savings and the creation of an additional facility to allow easier access to the inward processing arrangements to enable the Community processing industry to remain competitive on external markets.

The rules for the application of this package of measures and their impact on the various sectors still have to be discussed with the experts of the Member States' delegations in the appropriate management committees.

(1) COM(1999) 625 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/00

by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Nationality in relation to double taxation

A German and an Austrian are employed at the Frankfurt branch of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, a public body. Whilst the Austrian, as an employee of a public body, is treated as having his permanent residence in Austria, the German employee comes under the double taxation agreement between Austria and Germany. Pursuant to that agreement, he has limited tax liability in Austria unless, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Schumacker case, he applies for unlimited tax liability.

This situation gives the Austrian employee specific advantages, for example the payment of child allowances provided for in Austria or the possibility of deducting compulsory sickness insurance from tax over and above the limit for contributions set in Germany.

Is it consistent with European law that an Austrian employee should be in a better position than a German one merely because of his nationality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

As the Court of Justice has found on a number of occasions, the situation of residents and non-residents is usually different, which accounts for different tax treatment(1).

Under Article 3 of the Austrian law on tax procedures (Bundesabgabenordnung BAO), Austrian civil servants posted abroad are considered to be theoretically resident in Austria irrespective of where they actually live. They are therefore liable for tax in Austria on income earned anywhere in the world. There are comparable rules in all the Member States.

This legislation is not inconsistent with European law, since nationals of other Member States who are not resident in Austria and who are paid by the Austrian state, such as an employee of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce in Frankfurt (Germany), may opt for unlimited tax liability in Austria (Article 1 § 4 ÖEStG), if their income from Austrian sources makes up the greater part of their income from sources anywhere in the world.

If this is not the case, and it is therefore not possible to opt for unlimited tax liability, an employee unlike an Austrian civil servant is taxed as an Austrian non-resident (with his income as an employee of the Chamber of Commerce). On the other hand, he is treated as resident for tax purposes in Germany. In this situation, certain differences in treatment, such as those highlighted by the question by the Honourable Member, may arise from the different status of residents as compared to non-residents. This is an inevitable consequence of the existence of two different national tax systems which have not been harmonised.

(1) (CJEC, judgment of 14.2.1995, case C-279/93 Schumacker; judgment of 12.5.1998, case C-336/96 Gilly).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. Funding of the meeting of Ministers of Defence.



Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0041 - 0041



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council (15 March 2000) Subject: Funding of the meeting of Ministers of Defence Was any of the cost of the unofficial meeting of Ministers of Defence in Portugal on 28 February 2000 met from the EU budget? If so, please give details. Reply (10 July 2000) The informal meeting of Defence Ministers in Portugal on 28 February 2000 did not place any burden on the EU budget. Apart from the mission expenses of a small number of officials, ordinary administrative costs were borne by the Presidency.