ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) and Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Sex trafficking in Kosovo

Is the Commission aware of press coverage referring to sex trafficking involving women from impoverished parts of Eastern Europe, taking place in Kosovo?

Would the Commission indicate what action they would support intended to end this trade, and the suffering that it causes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of, and concerned about, the reports that trafficking in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation is taking place into, through and from Kosovo. It seems to be the case that Kosovo is not only a place of origin, but also a place of transit and destination.

As regards the situation in Kosovo, the Commission is taking an active part in the work under the stability pact for South Eastern Europe. Within working table III on justice and home affairs, and the Council's multidisciplinary working group on organised crime, work is under way to combat organised crime in Kosovo and the neighbouring region. Trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation forms an important part of this work.

As regards the trafficking in human beings going through and from Kosovo to the Member States and candidate countries, the Commission will continue to support actions and projects under the STOP and the DAPHNE programmes. The Commission will also put forward legislative proposals to approximate Member States criminal laws on trafficking, including the issue of temporary permits of stay for victims of trafficking who are prepared to give evidence. In addition, the Commission actively participates in international co-operation against trafficking in a wider context. This includes the Group of eight most industrialised countries (G8), the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the United Nations (UN) (e.g. draft Convention on transnational organised crime and the three additional protocols, one of which concerns trafficking).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0092/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: High-speed rail link between northern Portugal and Galicia

There have been repeated reports in the Galician media that moves are under way to investigate the possibility of setting up a high-speed railway, following the decision taken by the Northern Portuguese Regional Coordinating Committee and the Galician Government. The Union is providing 50 % of the funding to cover the cost of the necessary study. However, according to the answer given by the Spanish Government in the Congress of Deputies to the BNG (Galician Nationalist Bloc) spokesman, the plans appear to be modest, since the intention is merely to build lines capable of carrying traffic moving no faster than 160 km/h. This information is consistent with other statements by Portuguese government spokesmen to the effect that the latter Government is proposing to relegate the La Coruña to Setúbal high-speed line to a marginal role, focusing exclusively instead on the Oporto to Lisbon line, which links up to Madrid.

Can the Commission confirm the above points and, should they be correct, say why traffic between Galicia and Portugal is to be restricted to such a slow speed? How soon might the work be completed, and when is the railway so vital for the development of both frontier regions likely to come into operation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0088/00, E-0092/00 and E-0093/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

At the current stage of the thought being given to the revision of the Community approach towards the trans-European transport network Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996(1), the Commission has not been aware of any specific new high-speed projects in Spain. The amounts mentioned by the Honourable Member have, in the main, been set aside for upgrading the

conventional railway lines to Galicia in order to achieve speeds of roughly 200 kilometres per hour (km/h) between Madrid and Monforte de Lemos, and upgrading the conventional lines to Orense and Santiago and towards La Coruna, Vigo et Oporto (Portugal).

As regards the development study of the Vigo-Oporto Atlantic corridor referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would confirm that 50 % of the total cost of that study was co-financed in 1999. Its basic aim covered the following two areas: launching transport infrastructure projects in the areas being examined (Galicia and Northern Portugal) while seeking practical joint public/private funding options, and gradually helping to integrate the ground, sea and air transport infrastructure networks, thus guaranteeing the lasting mobility of persons and goods. The results of the study are expected in 2001.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Use of PPPs for the purpose of regional policy

In its reply to question E-2218/99(1) the Commission takes the view that the use of PPPs in Community rules and, in particular, in the rules relating to regional policy is completely correct and reflects current practice, and it backs up this view by claiming that its methodology is accepted by the OECD and the UN.

However, at its fourth seminar on regional information at the service of regional policy in Europe, which was held in Rennes in January 1998, Eurostat's advisory committee on social and economic matters concluded that the validity of figures for GDP and for regional disparities depends on whether euros or PPPs are used, especially in view of the fact that national PPP rates are employed despite the major differences which exist between regions within the same Member State.

As regards the use of PPPs for the purposes of Community rules, does the Commission not consider the opinion of Eurostat's advisory committee to be more important than the fact that the PPP indicator is used by other international institutions for completely different purposes and with completely different results?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

Following its fourth seminar on Regional information serving regional policy in Europe, held at Rennes in January 1998, the European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres (CEIES) drew the following conclusion: The significance of GDP and regional disparities depend to some extent on whether measurements are in ecus or PPS, especially since national PPS rates are used despite major differences between regions within a given Member State.

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) stipulates that The regions covered by Objective 1 shall be regions corresponding to level II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS level II) whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average.

A presentation given during the seminar concluded that: It seems that the criterion proposed for the designation of Objective 1 regions in Agenda 2000 NUTS II GDP per head in PPS is mostly justified by convenience. GDP is used because it is published and available. PPS are used because, historically, they were more stable than exchange rates mldr An important question is whether other single criteria are more convincing. In practice, this seems unlikely.

The Commission does not currently calculate regional purchasing power parities, but is studying the feasibility of doing so.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/00

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: State aid from the Spanish Government to the electricity sector

Does the Commission intend to approve the Costs of Transition to a competitive system for the Spanish electricity companies, which amount to ESP 1,3 billion?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

As part of the liberalisation of the electricity market pursuant to European Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1), the Spanish authorities earmarked approx ESP 1 300 000 as compensation for the costs of transition to competition. On 29 January 1999 the Spanish authorities notified

these measures under Article 24 of the above Directive, the first paragraph of which lays down that those Member States in which commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of this Directive may not be honoured on account of the provisions of this Directive may apply for a transitional regime which may be granted to them by the Commission, taking into account, amongst other things, the size of the system concerned, the level of interconnection of the system and the structure of its electricity industry. The Commission shall inform the Member States of those applications before it takes a decision, taking into account respect for confidentiality. This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. At the same time the Spanish authorities notified these measures, as required, under Article 88(3) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty (state aid).

On 8 July 1999, the Commission took a decision stating that these measures were not covered by Article 24 of the Directive but should be examined in the light of the rules relating to state aid and, in particular, Article 87(3)(c) (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty(2). The Spanish authorities lodged an action for annulment of this decision, currently pending before the Court(3).

The Commission is also examining the case as a non-notified aid, because the measure came into force before it was notified under Article 88(3). The Commission will take a decision as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ L 319, 11.12.1999.

(3) Case C-369/99 Kingdom of Spain v. Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/00

by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: FIBT advertising rights on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors' clothing

In its International Rules on World Cup and European and world championship competitions, the Milan-based FIBT (International Bobsleighing and Tobogganing Federation) claims ownership of items that belong to competitors and clubs and/or national associations.

At the highest levels, bobsleighing is generally a professional sport. As a rule, the bobsleighs and other equipment used are the property of bobsleigh team members or of the clubs to which they belong or of the national associations sponsoring them.

In Section 1.13.3.2 of its International Rules, the FIBT declares, in breach of the rights of ownership and personal rights of competing team members, clubs and national associations, that 50 cm2 on each side of a bobsleigh and the lower third of its cowling, including the surfaces of the front lateral bumpers, is FIBT property.

The FIBT makes it difficult for top bobsleigh teams, clubs and national associations to find sponsors and so restricts their freedom to develop economic activity.

Will the Commission therefore state whether the FIBT rules on advertising space on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors' clothing run counter to Community case-law as it is currently evolving with regard to professional sport?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

On the basis of the information provided in the Honourable Member's question, the Commission finds it difficult to give a definitive answer. Full knowledge of the economic and legal facts and of the specific features of the sport, together with a definition of the market concerned, are needed in order to assess whether a federation's behaviour is restrictive within the meaning of the competition rules.

In any case, the right to allocate advertising space is a matter for national law. Should the various national laws grant the International Bobsleighing and Tobagganing Federation (FIBT) the right to decide on the use of advertising space, it would be necessary to consider whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member is the result of an agreement prohibited under Article 81 (former Article 85) of the EC Treaty or could constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (former Article 86) of the EC Treaty. The Commission does not have the information to carry out an analysis which would enable it to determine whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member affects trade between Member States or whether the FIBT, on the assumption that it acts as an undertaking, holds a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in Italian banks

Is the Commission aware that Italian banks charge a commission for money transferred into an Italian account from elsewhere within the Euro zone or for paying in when the transfer or payment is made by an EU citizen who is not resident in Italy? This commission is not charged for EU citizens who are resident in Italy. Does the Commission not feel this is a breach of Community law guaranteeing equality of treatment for EU citizens?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The cross-border credit transfer Directive(1) adopted in January 1997 and in force since 14 August 1999 introduces provisions on the transparency and performance of cross-border credit transfers. Among other things it defines how transfer charges are to be distributed, thus allowing the possibility of avoiding double charging. If there is no other arrangement between the customer and sending institution, the transfer is by default an OUR transfer: i.e. the sum of all charges of the complete transaction is borne by the sender and the beneficiary does not have to pay anything. Charges which are levied contrary to the provisions of the Directive can be reclaimed by the customer directly from the bank.

The Commission has at present no information that Italian banks as a general practice charge commissions for cross-border credit transfers to Italian non-resident accounts. If the Honourable Member has information concerning such practices, the Commission would be prepared to further examine and pursue them.

However, the Commission is aware that despite the provisions of the cross-border credit transfer Directive, cases of double charging on cross-border transfers do still exist in Italy regardless of the resident or non-resident status of the sender or beneficiary. Such practices are contrary to Community legislation and are pursued when they are made known.

The fact that Italy has not yet complied with its obligation to transpose the cross-border credit transfer Directive does not mean that the provisions of the Directive do not have to be observed. According to judgements of the Court of justice, a sufficiently defined directive, which has not been implemented in national law by the deadline established in the directive, can be relied upon by complainants in national courts.

(1) Directive 97/5/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 27 January 1997, OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Greek Ministry of Agriculture programme for withdrawal of fishing vessels

Decision No 274407/8-2-99 by the Greek Ministry of Agriculture approves financial aid for a programme for the definitive withdrawal of fishing vessels which will be co-funded by the Community and Greece (75 % from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and 25 % from the Ministry of Agriculture). However, the Greek State is now withholding 25 % of the overall sum of aid.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this? Given that this certainly invalidates in practice the principle of additionality which is the basic principle for the implementation of the programmes funded under the Community Support Framework, what measures does it intend to take, should the Greek Government continue to act in this way?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

Vessel-scrapping is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2468/98 of 3 November 1998 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products. The Regulation contains scales detailing the maximum amounts of state aid payable (based on gross registered tonnage gross tonnage (GRT GT) and vessel age) and the rates of financial assistance. The Community contribution must not be less than 50 % or more than 75 % of the aid granted.

When implementing vessel-scrapping schemes, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture fixes the payable premiums within the limits stipulated by Community legislation, while maintaining the 75 % Community/25 % Member State split.

In the case at issue, public funds are being managed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2468/98 because even if the premiums paid remain below the limits set by Community legislation Greece pays its 25 % share.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/00

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Continuation of the building projects in the Sintra-Cascais natural park in Portugal

In the answer to my Written Question E-1977/99(1) Mrs Wallström stated that she had registered the cases notified by me and sought clarification from the Porguese authorities.

Is the Commission aware that the above building projects in particular in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas notwithstanding statements by the competent national authorities to the contrary are being continued and have already resulted in considerable damage to the natural park which is visible to all and to which the Portuguese media have repeatedly drawn attention?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 57.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The two building projects in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas of the Sintra-Cascais park, which has been proposed as a site of Community importance by the Portuguese authorities, were registered as case No 1999/2275.

Having examined the case, the Commission wrote to the Portuguese authorities on 4 January 2000 to draw their attention to the obligations laid down in Directives 92/43/EEC (Habitats)(1) and 85/337/EEC (Impact Assessment)(2). At the same time, it asked them for their assessment of the situation. No reply has been forthcoming.

At its meeting on 21 March 2000, taking the view that the projects were not being carried out in compliance with the above-mentioned Directives, the Commission decided to pursue the case under Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0355/00

by Ward Beysen (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Copyright directive

The Commission's proposal on revising the directive on copyright and associated rights is currently before the Council. The proposal affords enormous advantages in that it strikes a balance between copyright holders, on the one hand, and users and the technology sector, on the other; however, there may be an inherent risk of giving a complete technical monopoly to copyright holders. What action is the Commission intending to take to avoid requirements being imposed in respect of technical systems in exceptional cases, i.e. instances where copying is, in fact, permitted?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The aim of the proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society(1) is to adapt the legal framework for copyright at Community level in order to meet the challenges of new technologies and new forms of production and exploitation of works. The proposal is in keeping with a globalised environment, and it aims to transpose the bulk of the international obligations arising from the treaties adopted in 1996 under the aegis of the World Intellectual Property Organisation; one of these relates to copyright and the other to interpretations, performances and phonograms.

Under one of these obligations, the contracting parties have agreed to adopt legislation guaranteeing legal protection of the technical measures used by copyright holders to protect their work against unauthorised acts. The proposal for a Directive transposes this obligation at Community level in order to ensure an equivalent level of protection in all Member States and to allow the single market to function properly.

The Honourable Member recognises the efforts made by the Commission in the proposal to strike a balance between the various rights and interests involved. The Commission is particularly aware of the need for balance when delimiting the level of protection of technical measures where a Member State has recourse to one of the exceptions provided for in Article 5 of the proposal. The Member States seeking a satisfactory solution within the Council working group share that concern.

(1) OJ C 180, 25.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0252/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Secondary employment

How many Commission staff are engaged in secondary employment that required approval according to the Staff Regulations and how many were instructed to cease or refrain from specified employment of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

Article 12 of the Staff Regulations provides that officials must abstain from any outside activities which may reflect on their position. Furthermore an official wishing to engage in an outside activity whether gainful or not, or to carry out any assignment outside the Communities must obtain permission from the appointing authority. Permission shall be refused if the activity or assignment is such as to impair the official's independence or to be detrimental to the work of the Communities.

The number of outside activities for which permission has been required in the last five years is 677. They related mainly to teaching engagements in universities, appearances at conferences and seminars, participation in different kind of Boards of academic, administration or artistic foundations, societies and other organisations whose activities are not in conflict with the interests of the Commission or the Communities. There have been four occasions on which permission to engage in outside activities was sought and authorisation has been refused.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Aid for Sicilian fishermen

The Sicilian Region, in accordance with regional Law No 30/1998, has introduced accompanying measures to offset the effects of temporary terminations or restrictions of fishing activities. This aid has not yet been released because the Commission has raised objections to which the Sicilian government has responded.

Given that, in the past, the Commission's opinion on the regional law in question has been favourable, can the Commission say:

1. What specific reasons lie behind the Commission's continued refusal to authorise the Sicilian Region to release the aid to the Sicilian fishermen who have applied for it;

2. When does the Commission intend to take a decision on this matter so that the economic hardship of hundreds of people working in the fishing industry, who are already suffering as a result of not being able to work, can be alleviated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission is examining the compatibility of the measure in question (Law No 30 of 26 October 1998) with Community law.

It will shortly arrive at a decision, taking special note of the additional information sent it by the Italian authorities on 28 December 1999.