ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0077/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Demolition of Greek historic building in FYROM

On 12 January 1999, the authorities in the town of Resna, FYROM, proceeded to demolish one of the most historic Greek monuments in that country. The Greek academy for boys, where Greek pupils from the Pelagonia region studied from as early as 1800 and where the great Greek teacher, Kosmas the Aetolian, taught was demolished (after cursory formalities) on the authority of the FYROM Ministry of Education.

This act is the latest in a number of provocative measures taken by the Skopje government against Greek cultural monuments in that country; recently (also in the town of Resna), the Greek inscriptions disappeared from the church of Ayios Georgios (built in 1842) and from the graves of Greeks in the Holy Trinity cemetery. Will the Commission say what action it will take to persuade FYROM to conform to standards of conduct befitting a genuine European country, particularly as that country is receiving generous funding through the PHARE programme and the European Investment Bank (EIB)?

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

(1 March 1999)

The Commission has taken note of the events in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to which the Honourable Member refers, particularly the demolition of one of the country's historic Greek monuments. Following contacts with the head of the liaison office of the Hellenic Republic in Skopje, through its resident envoy there, the Commission has been informed of the latter's démarche vis-à-vis the FYROM authorities with regard to this bilateral matter.

Depending on whatever measures may be taken following these events, the Commission could consider reorienting ongoing Phare cultural activities to contribute to the preservation of the country's Greek monuments, too. In future, however, no Phare funds will be earmarked for cultural projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0713/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in Navarre in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/99

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Time of payment of VAT

Is the Commission aware that there are significant differences between the Member States in respect of the date of payment of VAT?

Is the Commission aware that in the German system VAT must be calculated and paid before the 10th of the following month, whereas in the Netherlands VAT does not need to be paid until the end of the following month?

Does the Commission intend to take action to harmonise these different systems?

If so, how?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

Pursuant to Article 22.4 and 5 of the sixth Council Directive 77/380/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes(1), every taxable person shall submit a return by a deadline to be determined by Member States. That deadline may not be more than two months later than the end of each tax period. In principle, every taxable person shall pay the net amount of the value-added tax when submitting the regular return. However, Member States may set a different date for the payment of that amount or may demand an interim payment.

To date, the Commission has no intention to further harmonise the rules on the periods for payment of VAT, since existing differences between Member States are not considered as distorting the functioning of the common market.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0625/99

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: The Commission's replies to written questions

According to Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the Commission is required to reply to written questions from Members of the European Parliament within six weeks. In practice, however, it often takes nearly 3 months for the Commission to reply.

Why is the Commission often unable to abide by the six-week deadline laid down in Parliament's Rules of Procedure?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1999)

The Commission does its best to carry out its duty under Article 140 EC Treaty to reply to parliamentary questions. It devotes considerable resources to giving replies which are as complete and rapid as possible. These replies sometimes require extensive investigation or even enquiries of Member States.

The Commission replies to a large number of the questions inside the six week period set down in Parliament's internal rules, but is not able to do so in all cases. The average reply time of six weeks and four days in 1998 is capable of improvement. The Commission is attempting to reply within the period identified by the Parliament.

The Honourable Member will appreciate that recourse to the formal method of interrogating the Commission provided by Article 140 EC Treaty implies certain consequences (use of 11 languages, coordination between services, adoption in a way ensuring collegiate responsibility, publication in the official journal) which inevitably take a certain time.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0861/99

by Carlos Coelho (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Common fisheries policy

The Commission has recently submitted a draft regulation establishing a list of the types of behaviour which constitute a serious infringement of the rules of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

An analysis of that list shows that no reference is made to failure to comply with the multiannual guidance programmes for fisheries (MGPs), which lay down objectives for each of the Member States aimed at adapting the capacity of the fleet to fishery resources. The fact that some Member States (such as Portugal) have been complying with the programmes and reducing their fleets while others (such as France, the Netherlands and Italy) are not only failing to reduce their fleets but are in fact expanding them has given rise to a totally unacceptable distortion of competition, which stems from the absence of penalties against those countries which are in breach of their obligations.

For that reason, Parliament recommended in the Cunha report (A4-0046/98)(1) that the Commission should introduce a body of rules designed to put pressure on Member States to meet the targets set in the MGPs and penalise those which failed to do so.

Given that this issue involves behaviour which constitutes a serious breach of the rules of the common fisheries policy, with the result that countries which comply are penalised whilst failure to abide by Community rules is rewarded, why has the Commission not yet acted on Parliament's recommendation, will it do so and on what timescale?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 1999)

The Commission agrees that appropriate actions, including penalties, should be pursued by the Commission against Member States that do not meet the objectives of the multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGPs) for the fishing fleet, as recommended by the Parliament in the report drafted by Mr Cunha.

Many of these recommendations were taken into account in the Commission proposal for a Council regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(2), which explicitly states that certain sanctions may be taken if the MAGPs are not respected. This proposal is currently being considered by the Council.

(1) OJ C 104, 6.4.1998, p. 278.

(2) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/99

by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: BSE research - overcoming the species barrier

1. It is a known scientific fact that BSE can be transmitted from cattle to humans. Since SE occurs in a number of animals (overcoming the species barrier), there is a risk of BSE being transmitted to pigs and chickens, and hence entering the human food chain.

(a) What research programmes have there been in the European Union since 1991 for examining the transmissibility of BSE to other agriculturally useful animals?

(b) Which universities in which Member States are focusing on this work?

2. What research results are available in this area?

3. What appropriations are available in the budget for the research scientists?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 1999)

1. (a) In the field of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) the Community has since 1991 supported 54 research projects with an overall Community contribution of approximately 46,2 million euro. These activities were or are being implemented within the Community specific research programmes Biomedicine and health (Biomed), Biotechnology (Biotech) and Agriculture and fisheries (FAIR) of the fourth framework programme for research and technological development.

11 out of the 54 projects are supported as part of the different calls for proposals within the Biomed, Biotech and FAIR programmes. The remaining 43 projects are a result of the action plan on TSE research launched by the Commission in June 1996.

Moreover, the Joint research centre (JRC), on behalf of the Commission and in co-operation with independent experts, is engaged in three projects in relation with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), namely "Detection of bovine animal meals in feedingstuff of plant origin", "Detection of an appropriate heat treatment of animal meals" and "Evaluation of BSE post mortem tests", with a budget allocation of approximately 1 million euro.

The specific issue of BSE transferability is addressed, from different perspectives, in seven projects. Two projects are aimed at the study of the mechanisms of BSE transmission and the species barrier. One project intends to assess potential transferability of BSE from cattle to pigs and one project aims to develop a pre-clinical test to differentiate between scrapie and BSE infection in sheep. In addition, three projects aimed to reduce risks of transferability by developing measures to avoid meat contamination; improve sterilisation processes for the production of feed animal proteins; and to develop procedures for inactivation of TSE agents. A summary of the projects is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

1. (b) A list of institutions involved in the above projects is also sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

2. The projects on transferability of BSE all started during 1998 and it is premature at this stage to anticipate their results.

3. The overall budget allocated to these activities is approximately 7,6 million euro.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1002/99 by Ian WHITE Open Commercial Trading of slots at airports



Official Journal C 370 , 21/12/1999 P. 0151



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/99 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (20 April 1999) Subject: Open Commercial Trading of slots at airports Is the Commission aware that the potential open commercial trading of slots at airports by airlines will lead to smaller regional services being squeezed out of major hub airports due to pure commercial pressure? Is this not contrary to the policy of regionalisation and transport access by air on a region-to-region basis?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/99

by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: BSE: comparison between Switzerland and the EU

1. What is the Commission's opinion of the face that a relatively large number of cattle in Switzerland have been found to be infected with BSE?

2. How true is it that examinations for BSE are much less accurate in Germany than in Switzerland?

3. How true is it that diagnostic facilities are poorer in Germany than in Switzerland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

1. The Commission is aware of the elevated number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases in Switzerland. In relation to the size of the cattle population the situation is rather different from the situation in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the number of BSE cases shows a steady decline since the peak of the epidemic in 1995. This decline is considered to be indicative of effective eradication measures. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat, two tables containing information on the current BSE incidence over the past twelve months, and on the total number of BSE cases since 1988.

2. Since April 1998 the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) surveillance and monitoring measures have been harmonized at Community level by Commission Decision 98/272/EC of 23 April 1998, on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC(1). Most Member States, including Germany, have already reported in the framework of the standing veterinary committee on progress made with the implementation of this Decision.

There are no indications, neither from these progress reports, nor from inspections carried out by the Commission on the national surveillance systems, that the BSE examinations are much less accurate in Germany than in Switzerland.

3. The before mentioned Decision also lays down the conditions for sampling and laboratory testing for detection of the presence of a TSE following the recommendations of the manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines of the International office of epizootics (OIE). The rapid tests for detection of BSE after slaughter, which are currently being developed by several laboratories amongst others in Switzerland, have not yet been accepted by the OIE. The Commission is at this moment evaluating a number of such tests but has not yet completed this exercise.

To conclude, several alternative means to diagnose TSEs are being recommended by various laboratories around the world. It is however, premature to draw conclusions as to the quality or accuracy of those tests.

(1) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.
(2000/C 27 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1380/99
by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Income tax levied on assets in a Member State of the Union
At the request of an Austrian citizen who owns a house in Spain, I wish to ask the Commission:
1. Does this make the Austrian liable to income tax in Spain  whether or not he lets the house?
2. Would he be liable to income tax only if he let the house to a third party?
3. Does this arrangement infringe EU legislation (e.g. avoidance of double taxation)?
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(15 September 1999)
The Spanish legislation provides that residents and non-residents who own a property in Spain, even if
that property is occupied by the owner and is a non-rented property, have to include in their income,subject to personal income tax, 2 % of its adjusted rateable value. In case of non-residents the income tax islevied at a flat rate of 25 %. For residents, the rate of taxation is the marginal rate of personal income taxapplied to taxable income (up to 56 %).
According to the convention of 20 December 1966 concluded between Austria and Spain for the
avoidance of double taxation, modified by the Protocol of 24 February 1995, and in particular Articles 6and 24(1)(a), income from immovable property is taxable solely where the property is located, i.e. in Spainin the present case. So, no double taxation of such income could take place for that taxpayer.
The Commission does not see how that legislation, which does not appear to contain any discriminatory
provisions, could be in infringement with Community law.
(2000/C 27 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1381/99
by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Deregulation of public transport services
Will the Commission please state the extent to which deregulation of public transport services has taken
place to date in each EU Member State.
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(7 September 1999)
The Commission sponsored the Isotope research report which distinguished between (a) deregulation, in
which there is open access to the market (competition on the ground); (b) limited competition, in whichoperators hold exclusive rights for particular routes or areas but have to take part in competitive tenderingevery few years (competition for the ground); (c) the classical model, in which an operator enjoys anexclusive right indefinitely without competition.C 27 E/34 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0599/99

by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(3 March 1999)

Subject: Registration and taxation of Alsatian recreational craft

As far as the registration of vessels in France is concerned, recreational craft in international waters are subject to a flag tax; while in inland waterways, as in Alsace, they are subject to the VNF (French inland waterway traffic) tax. Given that the canal connecting the Rhone and the Rhine which also provides a link between northern and southern Alsace can no longer be used, Alsatian recreational craft are now compelled to use the Canal d'Alsace. The latter is governed by an international charter and, despite the fact that Alsatian recreational craft sailing to Strasbourg, Colmar or Mulhouse are merely passing through, they are obliged to pay the flag tax to the customs authorities, and are thus subject to double taxation, while vessels flying foreign flags are exempt.

Is the Commission aware of this double taxation? What representations does it intend to make to the French State in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. It would point out, however, that since registration or circulation taxes on certain means of transport (including pleasure crafts) are not yet harmonised in the Community, Member States are free to introduce or maintain such taxes provided they do not give rise to any infringement of Community law and in particular of Article 95 of the EC Treaty. This latter article forbids Member States to introduce or maintain tax systems where the taxation on imported products and that on similar domestic products is calculated in a different manner on the basis of different criteria which leads to higher taxation being imposed on the imported products. On the basis of the information provided, the system of dual taxation which is levied on certain vessels appears only to affect domestic means of transport and does not, therefore, infringe Community law.
Can the Commission say why this expenditure is set to increase from EUR 246 million to over
EUR 277 million (i.e. from ITL 477 billion to over 530 billion) in 2000  a rise of EUR 31 400 000(approximately ITL 60 billion)?
(2000/C 27 E/202) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/99
by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 September 1999)
Subject: Draft budget 2000  Staff and administrative expenditure in European Community delegations
and decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration
In 1998, total expenditure on staff and administration in EC delegations and decentralised expenditure on
support staff and administration was ECU 394 million (equivalent to ITL 763 billion).
Can the Commission explain why expenditure of EUR 433 million is envisaged for 2000, representing an
increase of some EUR 40 million (ITL 77 billion)?
Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1702/99, E-1703/99 and E-1706/99
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
(18 November 1999)
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.
(2000/C 27 E/203) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/99
by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 September 1999)
Subject: LIFE programme
The LIFE programme, established by the European Union as an environmental protection measure, has
been divided into two stages: 1991-1995 and 1996-1999.
Can the Commission state:
1. how many and what specific LIFE (environment and nature) projects have been submitted for Italy;2. how many and which of these projects have been promised funding and for how much;3. how many and which of the latter have actually been funded as at 10 September 1999.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(4 November 1999)
The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliaments Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/165 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in Melilla in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0698/99, E-0699/99, E-0700/99, E-0701/99, E-0702/99,E-0703/99, E-0704/99, E-0705/99, E-0706/99, E-0707/99, E-0708/99, E-0709/99, E-0710/99,E-0711/99, E-0712/99, E-0713/99, E-0714/99, E-0715/99 and E-0716/99 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

As explained in the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0697/99(1), Eurostat does not directly measure the extent of the underground economy in the Member States. However, the Commission has asked the Member States to supplement the coverage of the underground economy by carrying out a number of procedures to verify and to improve estimates of gross national product (GNP) and gross domestic product (GDP).

The national data for the years 1994 to 1996 submitted by Spain in October 1998 incorporate the result of this exercise. Therefore, they are exhaustive and cover the underground economy.

However, on the basis of the national data supplied to Eurostat it is not possible to identify what proportion of the overall figure is attributable to the underground economy. Any such assessment at regional level is accordingly also impossible.

(1) See page 115.