ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Tax reforms in Southern Africa

In his answer to question E-2382/99(1), Commissioner Poul Nielsen said that: The Community is ready to assist the BLNS countries in implementing fiscal reform, necessary to diversify their sources of income. This would enable the countries in question to absorb the financial consequences of the free-trade agreement between the Community and South Africa.

1. What specific measures does the Commission have in mind to help (a) Botswana, (b) Lesotho, (c) Namibia and (d) Swaziland in reforming their tax systems?

2. In what way will the Commission implement these measures in (a) Botswana, (b) Lesotho, (c) Namibia and (d) Swaziland?

3. When will the Commission start implementing these measures in (a) Botswana, (b) Lesotho, (c) Namibia and (d) Swaziland? When will the proposed fiscal reform be completed?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 36.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the Community is ready to assist Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland (BLNS) in implementing fiscal reform according to their own established timetables and their own fixed priorities.

It must be recalled that no fiscal or financial effects on the economies of the BLNS countries, as a consequence of the implementation of the trade and development cooperation agreement (TDCA), are foreseen before the year 2006. Most South African tariff reductions will only start six years after the entry into force of the agreement, and most cuts in duties will only come towards the end of the transitional period of twelve years.

Fiscal reform in the BLNS countries should not only be seen in the context of possible financial consequences of the TDCA, but should take into account as well the possible consequences of the ongoing negotiations on the reform of the Southern African customs union (SACU) and the trade negotiations for a free trade area between the Southern African development community (SADC) member states.

The Commission is preparing a support programme in close cooperation with the BLNS countries. The first phase will undertake analysis on adjustment issues arising from trade liberalisation and prepare activities to take advantage of the new opportunities in addition to coping with the necessary adjustment process. This phase is valued at 6 million and is foreseen to be implemented over a three year period from January 2001-December 2003. A second phase will involve a package for assisting the private sector to enhance their competitiveness through the introduction of new techniques, improved management and work practices and retraining of labour, and the design, where appropriate, of transitional budgetary support programmes within the context of coherent macro economic programmes. A third phase could focus on the implementation of such programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Amendment of the Bosman ruling

Can the Commission suggest, were the Bosman ruling to be amended, how it would propose to deal with the issue of grandfather rights for registered footballers from foreign countries already in the EU? Would the transitional period be longer than 20 years? Or would the Commission attempt to buy out such rights and, if so, what level of compensation would be paid, and what would be the estimated total cost?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its position on the Bosman ruling(1) was set out in the Helsinki Report on sport(2). The Commission draws to the attention of the Honourable Member that the Bosman judgement was confirmed recently by the Court in the Lehtonen case on 13 April 2000. It is therefore very unlikely that it will be amended in the foreseeable future.

(1) Case C-415/93 ECR 1995, p. I-4921.

(2) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework COM(1999) 644 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0839/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Problems in implementing the Operational Programme on Education and Initial Vocational Training as part of the Community Support Framework for Greece

In May 1998 the Greek Ministry of Education announced a competition for the modernisation of educational material for teaching chemistry for all three lycée classes under the project entitled Reformulation and Modernisation of the Study Programmes of Natural Sciences of the Ministry of Education which forms part of the Operational Programme on Education and Initial Vocational Training, Subprogramme A1, Measure 1.1 of the Community Support Framework.

Three educational packages were approved by the Organisation for Educational Book Publications, and instructions were given for printing to go ahead under Ministerial decision C2 6201. However, the process of assessment has far exceeded the time limit provided, so that the Pedagogical Institute has entrusted some members of the Institute and others with the task of compiling provisional chemistry books for the 1999-2000 school year at considerable financial cost; it was however decided by Act No 32/1999 of 24 November 1999 to reprint these books with improvements for the 2000-2001 school year. At the same time the books which have been officially approved remain unused.

Will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of this matter?

2. Why have the three series of educational books which have been assessed and approved not yet been printed and distributed to pupils and teachers?

3. Why has Ministerial decision C2 6201 not yet been implemented?

4. Why has it been decided to reprint provisional textbooks, rather than use textbooks which have already been approved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

In the framework of the operational programme on education and initial vocational training, the European social fund (ESF) co-funds actions for the reform of curricula and the modernisation of educational material.

According to the structural funds regulations, the Member States are responsible for the implementation of the programmes.

According to information provided to the Commission by the Greek ministry of Education which is in charge of the implementation of the programme in question, with decision C2/6201/31.12.99, the ministry approved and decided to proceed with the printing and use of new educational material for chemistry for the Integrated Lyceum (i.e. textbooks for the students, textbooks for the teachers, laboratory guide, transparencies). However, the above material was not ready in time to be printed and used in the school year 2000-2001. Therefore, the reprinting of the old textbooks was asked, so that they will be available for the school year 2000-2001. The reprinted old textbooks will be used in the future as alternative textbooks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0273/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Theoretical basis of Eurostat's PPP data

In its reply to question E-2218/99(1) the Commission takes the view that using PPP in Community rules in countries which have adopted the euro is completely correct and a reflection of current practice.

Can the Commission quote a single reference from economic theory which supports the practice of using PPP in order to compare the GDP prices of countries which use the same currency?

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

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

International comparisons of gross domestic product (GDP) in real terms are only possible if the following three conditions are met: the definition of GDP must be the same, GDP must be expressed in the same monetary unit, and it must be evaluated at the same price level.

GDP estimates, both for Member States and for other countries, generally meet the first condition but do not meet the other two because they are expressed in the national currency and are evaluated in accordance with the prices of the country in question. The use of purchasing power parities (PPPs) allows these last two conditions to be met.

It seems therefore that where two Member States share the same national currency, or where this currency has a fixed and intangible parity with another currency, PPPs are still useful because in this case the first two conditions are met but the third (price levels) is not always.

Moreover, even if price differences were to diminish in future (price convergence) as a result of the internal market and European monetary union, the experience of the United States or of Belgium and Luxembourg shows that significant differences between regional or national price levels could continue to exist for a long time.

Similarly, PPPs are used to compare the GDPs of countries such as the United States and Argentina, even though the Argentine peso has a fixed peg to the American dollar (1 peso = 1 $). In the United States, the use of regional PPPs was recommended for poverty comparisons. In addition, the Federal Government uses PPPs to carry out cost-of-living adjustments for its employees who work in different places of employment throughout the United States.

It therefore seems that the realisation of European monetary union in no way eliminates the significance of the use of PPPs at European level; on the contrary, these will continue to represent a valuable economic tool.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0960/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Support for venture capital firms in the EU

Venture capital is the primary means of financing start-up companies and undertakings making new high-risk but potentially highly profitable investments.

However, EU venture capital firms are lagging well behind those in the US, whose investment levels are running at almost twice those of their EU counterparts.

What action does the Commission consider it could take to encourage investment by EU venture capital firms, to allow them substantially to increase their investments in SMUs in the Union to the point where venture capital investment levels have caught up with those of the US?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding the under-development of venture capital in Europe, although the situation is beginning to improve. In order to improve the current situation and ensure that fast growing companies can find appropriate risk capital, the Commission is committed to accelerate the implementation of the risk capital action plan(1). To achieve this goal strong co-operation from the Member States and the private sector is needed. The European Investment bank (EIB) and the European Investment fund (EIF) also have significant roles to play. The Lisbon European Council stressed the need to remove all the barriers outlined in the risk capital action plan by 2003 a clear signal of the political importance now attached to this matter.

The Commission's communication on risk capital(2) was adopted in April 1998. The risk capital action plan attached to the communication was broadly endorsed by the Cardiff European Summit (June 1998) and the Parliament. The action plan lists six sets of barriers to be removed in the Community namely market fragmentation, regulatory barriers, tax barriers, a paucity of good projects, human resources shortages, and cultural barriers.

A first analysis of the implementation of the risk capital action plan was made by the Commission in October 1999. To speed up the implementation of the risk capital action plan, the Commission highlighted in this communication some key regulatory measures to be taken in 2000, as well as some examples of good practices to encourage reforms in all Member States. The Commission will also regularly monitor and benchmark the implementation of the risk capital action plan. It should also be noted that the Commission's E-Europe action plan (November 1999) proposed, as one of its targets, tripling the availability of early stage finance by 2003. The final E-Europe action plan will be presented for endorsement to the European Council in Feira in June 2000.

(1) COM(1999) 493 final.

(2) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1540/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Science and Research Foundation

On 12 November 1999 the Istanbul police arrested 85 members of the Science and Research Foundation. Of these, 35 have been charged by the State Security Court with endangering state security. 28 of them were released after a week in prison in which they were subjected to various forms of torture and forced to sign a confession. Seven persons are still being held: Mr Adnan Oktar, Honorary President of the Foundation, Mr Firat Develioglu, Mr Hasan Basri Guner, Mr Ferhat Terkoglu, Mr Halil Muftuoglu, Mr Timur Ayan and Mr Finre Nil. When they first appeared before the State Security Court on 7 April the President of the Court rejected the State Prosecutor's plea for them to be released and deferred a decision on this matter until a hearing due to take place on 2 June.

Is the Commission aware of these developments? If so, what initiatives has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the persons who have been charged enjoy all the guarantees of a fair trial and are held in acceptable conditions of detention pending trial? Does it intend to be represented at the trial on 2 June?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's Answer to Written Question No E-1020/00 by Mr Manisco(1).

The Commission would add that it intends to follow the trial but does not intend to attend the hearing on 2 June 2000.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 144.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Grant of a licence to conduct test borings for gas in the De Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware of the new licence granted on 13 January 2000 by the Netherlands Economic Affairs Minister to the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschapij NV (NAM Netherlands Petroleum Company) to conduct boring operations for the Andel-2 concessionary area situated between Schoonhoven, Dordrecht and Hertogenbosch in the provinces of South Holland, Gelderland and North Brabant?

2. Is the Commission aware that the concessionary area referred to in paragraph 1 above includes not only farming and residential areas, but also the De Biesbosch river area, connected to it by a slender one-kilometre wide strip of land situated between the Nieuwe Merwede (on the north side) and the Amer (on the south side), a former fresh-water tidal area that is home to a large number of rare plant and animal species and has enjoyed national-park status since 1994?

3. Is the Commission aware of the Netherlands government's reasons for including the De Biesbosch area referred to in paragraph 2 above with the rest of the Andel-2 concessionary area, and does it agree that the area would not have been included unless it had been expressly intended to leave open the option of conducting natural-gas boring operations within a national park area?

4. Can the Commission confirm that De Biesbosch is one of the areas to which the European habitats and birds directive applies, and that oil-boring operations in that area can result in unintended disruption to plant and animal life, and, by way of land subsidence and further soil pollution (following earlier damage by 112 000 tons of petroleum-retaining soil and catalytic converter waste by a company (Shell) with a 50 %-shareholding in NAM on the north side of the Biesbosch?

5. Does the Commission agree that holding open the option of allowing gas-boring operations to be conducted within the De Biesbosch National Park area conflicts with the region's status as a protected area?

6. What action will the Commission take to ensure that the De Biesbosch area ceases to be included in the Andel-2 concessionary area, so that it can continue to be protected against boring operations and their adverse impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The only information the Commission has about the facts that are raised by the Honourable Member is from articles in Dutch newspapers. Therefore it is not able to go more deeply into this case.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-0179/00 by Mr de Roo(1), in which it said that it is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Netherlands comply with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(3).

(1) See page 99.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0245/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Refund of resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries

The rules governing the common organisation of the market in tobacco provide that, if after the deliveries of all varieties of tobacco, the overall amount delivered is found to be less than the overall quota allocated to the country concerned, supplementary deliveries entitled to premiums up to the size of the overall quota are not permitted.

Given that frequently, mainly owing to unfavourable weather conditions, production falls below the quota level and that this measure applicable to deliveries merely means a loss of aid and a reduction in the incomes of tobacco producers.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to consider whether the resources lost owing to a shortfall in tobacco deliveries might be refunded to the tobacco sector?

2. Will it allow additional deliveries with premium entitlements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

Current Community legislation on tobacco does not provide for reacquisition of appropriations lost following a shortfall in tobacco deliveries.

Where tobacco deliveries are entitled to a premium, Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector(1) stipulates that, except in cases of force majeure, producers must deliver their entire production to the first processor by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest for the groups of varieties VI, VII and VIII and by 15 April of the year following the year of harvest for the other groups of varieties, failing which they will lose their entitlement to the premium. However, Article 27(4) of the same Regulation provides that producers who had an abnormally low harvest during the reference period because of bad weather do not lose the right to their quota.

On the other hand, so that production quotas can be fully utilised, where deliveries are made under cultivation contracts concluded with producer groups, if a producer member's harvest falls below the maximum quantity to be delivered, quantities from another producer member of the same group whose production exceeds his individual quota can be included in the deliveries entitled to premiums provided that the quantity entered on the quota statement of the producer group in question is not exceeded and that Regulation (EC) No 2848/98, in particular Articles 11, 22 and 24 thereof, is complied with.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999(1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament expressed support for the idea of a clearly identified unit within the Commission to deal with family affairs and child protection and called urgently for the revival of the Commission's interdepartmental group on child-related issues.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0403/00

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Effects of the abolition of duty-free sales

The European Council meeting in Cologne on 4 June 1999 decided that the European rules on duty-free sales should be allowed to expire on 30 June 1999. The decision followed heated discussion as to its probable impact. In particular, it was argued that the abolition of duty-free sales would result in drastic job losses.

In view of the foregoing:

1. Does the Commission have any information concerning the impact of the abolition of duty-free sales on the employment market?

2. Does the Commission have any information concerning the impact of that decision on specific regions and sectors (coastal areas, airports, tourism, duty-free retail trade etc.)?

3. Is the Commission aware whether, and in which Member States, compensatory measures have been applied to the regions or sectors affected; if so, what is the extent and nature of such measures?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

For information about the impact of the abolition of intra Community duty-free sales on employment, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies given to Written Questions E-1999/99 by Mr Davies(1) and E-2135/99 by Mr Staes(2).

As for regional and sectorial impact, the Commission has not received any information to suggest that the abolition has had any significant impact on specific regions or sectors. It is currently seeking to establish whether Member States might have applied any compensatory measures in response to specific problems that they might have experienced.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 109.

(2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 57.