ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/00

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: VAT

Since 31 December 1992 we have had a temporary system of indirect taxation in the EU. The European Parliament has repeatedly pointed to the need for the introduction of a definitive system based on the principle of taxation in the country of origin. To date there have been only slight changes in the temporary VAT system.

The smooth operation of the single market would require a definitive system which does not further distort the free play of the market and hence the best possible allocation of resources. However, the Commission's work programme for 2000 does not seem to envisage any measures to this end. Does the Commission still want to introduce a definitive and efficient VAT system? What are the reasons for its apparent immobility?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that only the introduction of a definitive system of VAT, based on the principle of taxation in the Member State of origin, will ensure smooth operation of the single market by enabling transactions in the Community to be treated in the same way as domestic transactions in a Member State. Such a definitive, origin-based system is administratively simple enough to satisfy traders and tax administrations while being effective in combating fraud and tax evasion.

When the temporary system was adopted, the Council gave a legal and political undertaking to move towards introducing the definitive system within five years. In 1996, to overcome reservations expressed by the Member States, the Commission presented a communication in which it proposed a gradual, stage by stage movement to the definitive system(1).

Since then, it must be said, no notable progress has been made, and the proposals presented by the Commission with regard to VAT have largely failed.

On 29 March 2000 the Commission, acknowledging this situation, adopted the principle of a new strategy which is intended to give priority to improving the existing system, without in any way abandoning the longer term objective of a definitive origin-based system(2).

In the short term, we will have to relaunch discussions on proposals before the Council aimed at simplifying the existing rules and applying them more uniformly, adapting Community legislation to the demands of the new economy, for example electronic commerce and postal services, and reactivating and reinforcing administrative cooperation in this field.

If we achieve these objectives we will create the conditions in the longer term for the move to a definitive VAT system, which continues to be our goal.

(1) COM(96) 328 final.

(2) SEC(2000) 528.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Italian girl held in Kuwait City

Erica is thirteen years old and has an Italian mother and an Egyptian father. Since mid-January she has been sheltering in the Italian Embassy in Kuwait City, where she went of her own accord for help. The girl,

whose father was awarded custody after her parents' divorce, finds it intolerable to live with him in an Islamic environment in a country which blatantly violates many of the rights that European women consider inalienable. Erica is an Italian citizen and wants to return to Italy to live with her mother and younger sister. She is under the protection of the Italian authorities who are providing her with every assistance under Italian law. However, it is difficult to bring her out of the country and to re-unite her with her mother as she wishes, and as has been reiterated in a letter from the President of the Republic of Italy, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi.

What measures does the Commission intend to take so that its representative can help the Italian Embassy in its efforts to comply with Erica's wishes and enable her to return to Europe to live with her mother?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission does not have a representation in Kuwait.

It was not informed of the case referred to by the Honourable Member, which is not covered by its mandate but falls within the competence of the Member States, specifically Italy in its bilateral relations with Kuwait.

The Commission relies on the authorities in Kuwait and Italy to solve the problem according to their laws and in the girl's best interests.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0987/00

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: List of provisions for which unanimity is still required (reference: annex to the Commission's opinion of 26 January 2000 concerning the Intergovernmental Conference)

The co-rapporteur on the Intergovernmental Conference for the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs asks the Commission

1. to justify its proposal for the long list of provisions on which unanimous votes would continue to be taken, and especially Parts 2 (institutional decisions) and 4 (parallel internal and external decisions) and

2. to explain the arguments in relation to the fundamental question of how this proposal for the perpetuation of unanimity in many areas is to be reconciled with the concept of the governance of a European Union of 28 or more Member States if each Member State is to continue to have a right of veto even where details are concerned.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

1. In its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)(1), the Commission proposes that qualified majority be the general rule for decision-making. It has identified five categories of provisions for which serious and lasting reasons warrant making an exception to the rule and maintaining unanimity. The second category is that of essential institutional decisions and decisions affecting the institutional balance, that is, important decisions relating to the organisation and functioning of the Institutions. The fourth category comprises provisions enabling the Community to take external action in areas where unanimity is maintained for internal action: this is the logic underlying parallelism, on which Article 300 of the EC Treaty is based. The Commission is prepared to examine in detail, together with the Honourable Member, the precise reasons for which the provisions given in Annex 1 to the opinion have been placed in these categories. However, it does not regard this as a long list.

2. The Commission recalls that the provisions listed in Annex 1 of the opinion (List of provisions on which unanimous votes would continue to be taken, by way of derogation from the principle of qualified-majority voting) are essentially

institutional provisions and that it has proposed that almost all the legal bases on which the Community takes action in the various fields falling within its jurisdiction should provide for decision-making by qualified majority in future. It regards its opinion as being very close to the report on Parliament's proposals for the IGC, adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs(2), which proposes that unanimity in the Council be confined to decisions of a constitutional nature (cf. item25.3 of the motion for a resolution).

(1) Adapting the Institutions to make a success of enlargement COM(2000) 34 final.

(2) Report A5-0086/2000 (Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen), adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 24 March 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1384/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: The Swedish example as a model for the equality of women in the public sector

During the 1990s exemplary practices in Sweden led to the balanced representation of women in the public sector. This was achieved by pursuing a training and awareness programme for top management in all spheres of the public sector: even the prime minister and all members of the cabinet were involved.

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to ensure that these exemplary practices are extensively publicised so that the other EU Member states and the candidate countries follow them?

What financial instruments does the European Union have at its disposal to co-finance initiatives of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the Swedish model for the promotion of women in the public sector has been very successful.

For this reason, it has served as an example in various projects supported under Council Decision 95/593/EC of 22 December 1995 on a medium-term action programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996-2000)(1) which foresees the co-financing of initiatives to disseminate models of best practice on the promotion of women, including in the public sector. Furthermore, the Commission supported a conference on the promotion of women in the public sector in which the Swedish Ombudsman gave an extensive presentation on the Swedish system.

In the new framework programme on gender equality, for the period 2001-2005, the promotion of women to top management positions will be an important priority(2).

Finally, within the Commission, awareness raising training on gender equality is offered to civil servants to support the Commission's active gender equality policy in decision-making positions. The Commission will shortly adopt a decision on gender balance in the committees and expert groups established to advise it.

(1) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.

(2) [Due for adoption by the Commission on 30 May].
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0393/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Council Directive 91/628 (as amended by Council Directive 95/29 of June 1995) on protection of animals during transport

Council Directive 91/628(1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29(2) concerning the protection of animals during transport states that no live animal shall be transported in a condition which can cause suffering and that the Member States are responsible for the proper enforcement of the Directive.

According to Article 13 of Council Directive 95/29 of June 1995, the Commission should submit before 31 December 1999 a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. When does the Commission expect to comply with this requirement?

Does the Commission agree that the proposals accompanying the Commission's report to the Council should call for the EU to adopt a major change of policy whereby the long distance transport of live animals is abandoned and replaced by a trade in meat?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission's responsibilities towards animal protection have increased under the recent amendment of the EC Treaty which requires the European institutions and Member States to consider animal welfare a priority when drawing up agricultural, transport, single market and research policies.

During the first quarter of this year following the provision of Article 13 of Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport, the Commission will present to the Council a report on the experience acquired by Member States in the application of Community legislation in this field.

It is the Commission's view that, if all provisions of Community legislation are rigorously enforced, animals can be transported under satisfactory welfare conditions. However, it is evident that problems are being experienced, especially with very long distance travel, both within the Community and for animals imported from European third countries. These problems are being kept under close review by the Commission, and are drawn to the attention of Member States as and when they occur.

The data concerning the enforcement of the Directive on animal protection during transport derived from the above mentioned report as well as new scientific evidence in this subject will be taken into account by the Commission to amend current Community legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/00

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Equipping of motor vehicles with warning triangles

I am informed by a German industrial undertaking that since last summer the Kingdom of Spain has required motor vehicles to be equipped with two warning triangles. Are there any plans within the Commission to submit a proposal to make it compulsory for all motor vehicles throughout the EU to be equipped with two warning triangles?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of Spanish legislation requiring all vehicles to carry two warning triangles.

This is a requirement of the General Regulations of Vehicles, Article 19 and Annex XII published as a Royal Decree (Real Decreto 2822/98) on 23 December 1998.

The warning triangle does not form part of the construction standards of vehicles, and the requirement to carry it is an item of traffic rules.

Such rules are normally the competence of the Member States and the Commission has no plans to extend the Spanish system throughout the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

Can traditional EU institutional allies, especially the Parliament and the Commission, themeselves maintain a sense of unity in disseminating notions of a European Interest to a wider audience?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/00

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Respect for human rights in EU foreign policy

The Europe-Africa summit conference will provide an excellent opportunity for promoting a rapprochement, furthering mutual understanding and establishing new ties of cooperation between the two continents.

The European Union must insist on the adoption of an agenda which includes the principles of democracy and respect for human rights.

What subjects does the Council propose should be included in the agenda of this summit conference? Does it intend to include equality of treatment of men and women and the protection of children and compliance with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's view that the Africa-Europe Summit to take place in Cairo on 3 and 4 April 2000 will provide an excellent opportunity, at the threshold of the new century, to establish a strategic partnership between the Member States of the European Union and the States of the African continent, a partnership which will be based on the historical heritage which unites us and on our common interest in promoting peace, democracy, human rights, development and the eradication of poverty.

The subjects for debate by the Heads of State or Government attending the summit have been agreed jointly by the European Union and its African partners. They range over the fields of politics, economics and development. The European Union attaches particular importance to the political dialogue with its African partners, which will include in-depth discussion of the promotion of democracy and human rights, including the subjects to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1189/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Penalties for the use of toxic products on Spanish oranges

In its answer to Written Question P-0357/98(1), the Commission confirmed that rosin modified by maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythrol is unacceptable for food use.

Given that this substance is used for the processing and conservation of Spanish oranges and that the Commission intended to carry out a detailed study to verify whether penalties should be imposed for the infringement of Community rules,

will the Commission say:

1. whether the necessary information has been gathered, now that two years have elapsed, to carry out a full investigation of this alarming problem?

2. what steps it intends to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities for repeated infringement of European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC(2)?

3. what steps it intends to take to ensure proper control of plant protection products so as to prevent the marketing of products harmful to consumers?

(1) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 170.

(2) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

As a response to the information provided by the Honourable Member in his written question No P-357/98, the Commission took the necessary steps to find out from the Spanish authorities the exact situation and commenced a pre-litigation procedure.

The Spanish authorities admitted that they authorised a substance containing resins modified by maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythrol for treating citrus fruit after harvest. However, they stated that they believed the substance in question was covered by the provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1).

As the Commission pointed out that the practice in question contravened the relevant Community legislation, in particular European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, the Spanish authorities confirmed recently that they would withdraw licences for the controversial substances. The Commission is therefore closing the file.

In general, it is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that economic actors are complying with the above legislation.

If the Member State fails in this obligation, it is up to the Commission to decide whether to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Loi Evin Case

Commissioner Bolkestein has previously stated that the Loi Evin Case is being actively considered. Can he state who will be conducting these negotiations and does he undertake to report back to the Parliament on the outcome?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0984/00, E-0985/00 and E-0986/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission would reiterate that it is examining this case very carefully, not only because of the great concern in the Parliament but also because it is keen to ensure that the rules of the internal market are respected.

The Commission's main objective in this case is to ensure that the extra-territorial effects of the Loi Evin are compatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 59), namely that they are proportionate to the objective of protecting public health, an objective which the Commission fully supports. In this respect, the Commission is of the view that the 1995 Code of Conduct could in principle be an adequate means to ensure that the requirement of proportionality is satisfied. However, the Commission takes the view that the French authorities need to further improve the Code with a view to limiting its application to a limited number of well defined cases and to ensuring that it provides greater legal security and predictability for all parties, including organisers of sports events in other Member States. The Commission intends to discuss these points in the near future with the French authorities. When the Commission reaches a final decision on this case this decision will be made public according to the normal procedures and the Commission would, of course, be pleased to answer any further questions Honourable Members may have.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental health failures in Frankfurt (former US housing)

The new occupants of what was formerly US housing face a health risk, as very large amounts of adhesive containing tar, with potential carcinogenic effects, were used in the past in the housing in question (e.g. up to 80 % in the case of parquet flooring), as were toxic PCBs and pesticides (e.g. DDT).

1. Is the Commission aware that the authorities concerned have failed to observe the right to the provision of environmental information?

2. Does the Commission agree that it is a serious failing that the risk assessment does not take proper account of small children (under six years of age) as one of the main groups affected?

3. Does the Commission agree that the authorities have the greatest duty of care, and must act in as transparent a manner as possible, vis-à-vis those concerned?

4. Does the Commission agree that, in future, greater importance needs to be attached to indoor pollution?

5. Does the Commission agree that, pursuant to Article 17 of the environmental information directive, it should not be possible for public authorities to withhold, by claiming a derogation, information the disclosure of which could avert a significant threat to health?

6. Does the Commission agree that the latest scientific findings should be taken into consideration in risk assessments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that there must be transparency for European citizens, especially with regard to environmental and health problems.

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(1) stipulates that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest. Any

refusal to provide information must be explained and must be based on one of the exceptions listed in the Directive. Under the terms of the Directive, public authorities are also required to provide general information to the public on the state of the environment by such means as the periodic publication of descriptive reports.

In addition, any opinion must, to be relevant, be based on the best scientific knowledge available. To this end, the Commission backs many action programmes.

With regard to indoor pollution, the Commission, through the programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases(2), is supporting three projects which will improve our knowledge of how this type of pollution affects public health and so help deal with the risks affecting individuals.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2) OJ L 155, 22.6.1999.