ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: The role of the Commission's Representations to third countries

What instructions as the Commission given to its representatives in its foreign missions throughout the world concerning the reception of visiting parliamentarians?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

On the occasion of official visits (e.g. by the President, a Vice-President, or by the President of a Parliamentary Delegation or Committee) of the Parliament to third countries the Delegation of the Commission, in co-ordination with the services of the Parliament and through the intermediary of the Commission services in Brussels, provides assistance in the preparation of the visit. It also provides briefings and, as far as possible, logistic support. The Head of Delegation, as a general rule, accompanies such visits throughout their duration. The Delegation also organises contacts with the media and, where possible, organises a reception for the Parliamentary visitor(s). The Delegation also provides follow-up information on the results of the visit, notably the reactions of the local media.

For unofficial visits or visits from a single Parliamentary group, the visiting Member of the European Parliament or the competent bodies of the European Parliament inform the Commission of the visit and of the help that is requested. The Delegation responds to these requests as instructed by the Commission services and far as it is able to. In these cases as a general rule the Delegation does not take initiatives vis-à-vis the government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Blacklisting

According to the Commission's answer to Question P-3153/00(1), it is possible to keep a register of operators who present a risk of non-reliability.

How can the concept of final decision of an administrative authority cited by the Commission be reconciled with the customary legal guarantees in accordance with which a person is innocent until he has acknowledged his guilt or a court has found him guilty?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 81.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The Commission points out that the measures provided for under Community law can be taken only in compliance with certain principles. Generally speaking, the principles of the presumption of innocence and guilt apply primarily to matters of criminal law. The system of blacklists referred to by the Honourable Member is designed to implement administrative prerogatives.

The Commission recalls that Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 of 22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF(1) and the implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/96 of 24 April 1996(2) distinguish between two categories of non-reliable operators:

- those who, according to a final decision of an administrative or judicial authority, have deliberately or through serious negligence committed an irregularity in respect of relevant Community provisions and have unjustly benefited from a financial advantage or attempted to benefit therefrom; and

- those who, have been the subject of a preliminary administrative or judicial report by the competent authorities of the Member State, without prejudice to the possibility of this conclusion being revised.

Some of the measures under these Regulations may be applied to the second category of operators (tighter controls of operation and precautionary measures such as the suspension of payments for operations under way or the release of a guarantee). However, the only real penalty for which there is any provision exclusion may be imposed only where an irregularity has been the subject of a final decision of an administrative or judicial authority. This is an administrative, not a criminal penalty and may be imposed only on certain conditions, notably that the operator has had a prior hearing and has the right to appeal in accordance with the national law of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1828/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Application of Euratom to military nuclear tests

Will the Commission instruct its legal services to examine the judgment made by a British court on 29 March 2001 to the effect that the Euratom Treaty does not cover military activities, in contrast to the fact that the Commission decided in its legal opinion of RB/HGG/ve(95)1824, 5-9-95, that Euratom does apply to military nuclear tests?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the judgement made by a British Court on 29 March 2001 which concludes that the Euratom Treaty does not cover military activities.

Unlike the judgement of the British court, the Commission is of the view that the provisions of Chapter 3 Health and Safety of Title II of the Euratom Treaty apply to activities in both civil and military spheres. The protection of the health and the safety of the public in the field of radiation protection is an indivisible objective and extends to all dangers arising from ionizing radiation, irrespective of their source.

This opinion has been expressed, not only in 1995 concerning the French military nuclear tests in Mururoa and Fangatofa but also, more recently, in the framework of the dismantling operations of Windscale Pile I nuclear reactor (see answer to written question P-3055/00 by Mrs Doyle(1)).

Unless a European Court of Justice Decision rules otherwise, this judgement will not modify in the future the Commission's approach on the applicability of the Euratom Treaty to military installations.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1955/01

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Excise duty on alcoholic beverages

When will the recently finalised study on competition between different types of alcoholic beverages undertaken on behalf of the Commission by a private consultant be available for examination?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The recently finalised study undertaken on behalf of the Commission by a private consultant on the competition between different types of alcoholic beverages is now available. The executive summary of the study and the reference to order the complete study on CD-Rom can be found on the web-site of the Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, located at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/index_en.htm.

A copy of the CD-Rom has been sent to the office of the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0999/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge - agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the Commission therefore clarify the following points?

With regard to question 2.7(b):

- Can the Commission be more specific than merely stating that it is monitoring the matter? Can the Commission guarantee that the falsification of dairy products by the enterprise concerned did not involve intervention or aid schemes?

- Does the Commission's answer imply that it is responsible only for the falsification of dairy products which benefit directly from intervention or aid schemes?

- Did OLAF or the French authorities notify the Commission of the falsification of milk by the enterprise concerned?

Supplementary Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Within the resources available the Commission takes note of fraud allegations appearing in the press or brought to its attention by other means. As mentioned in the reply to question 2.7 (b) of the second questionnaire on the granting of discharge for the financial year 1999, it does not seem that the case mentioned by the Honourable Member involved any Community subvention, but the Commission is not in a position to give a clear-cut guarantee on this matter. No new information has surfaced and no further action is foreseen at this stage.

Adulterated products are not eligible for aid under the dairy aid schemes or any other scheme. The Community regulations define the products eligible and an adulterated product will not fulfil such definitions. The implementation is the responsibility of the Member State. The regulations include control provisions, which must be enforced by Member States to ensure, inter alia, that adulterated products do not benefit from any Community aid. The Commission verifies the implementation and shortcomings that can lead to financial corrections imposed on Member States within the clearance of accounts procedure. Any suspicion of fraud is referred to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

An adulterated product may also breach other Community legislation on standards, denomination and labelling. Also in these areas are Member States responsible for implementation and controls that again are subject to verification by the Commission's control bodies.

The Commission has only obtained information on this alleged case of adulterated milk through the press. There is no communication on the basis of Council Regulation No 595/91 of March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organization of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72(1) from the French authorities concerning these allegations.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2309/01

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Second Forest-Based Industries (FBI) Forum

The second Forest-Based Industries Forum was held in Stockholm on 21 June 2001. Given the importance of this sector to the economy of many Member States, why did the Commission fail to provide Members of the European Parliament with adequate information on this event?

In view of this lack of information, can the Commission say what emphasis the Forum gave to the furniture industry, which in terms of production represents 60 % of the total timber/furniture macrosector in Europe (Eurostat figure for 1999)?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2001)

While the Commission has always been very pleased to mention such events on the web-site of the Enterprise Directorate General, dissemination of information about the Forum of the Community Forest-based and Related Industries (F-BRI) is essentially a matter for the industries concerned. In practice industry is increasingly taking over the role of organising and funding the Forum. Accordingly, in the case of the Stockholm Forum in June 2001, a steering group was formed from amongst the Community-level federations concerned - including the European furniture industry federation (UEA) in order to oversee its planning and execution. It is understood that the group, which met several times prior to the Forum, decided on the themes to be covered at the Forum and the final invitation list.

It is also understood that some 50 Honourable Members were invited to the Forum, on the basis of the recommendations made by the F-BRI's representative federations. In addition, the Commission recommended that Honourable Members who had been invited to the previous (Strasbourg) Forum be invited, as well as other interested parties, including environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs), trades unions and researchers. It appears that Honourable Members were also sought to take part in the panel discussions at the Forum and, indeed, Mr. Karl Erik Olsson, Honourable Member, took part in the panel on The Enhanced Use of Wood.

As regards the European furniture industry, Mr Rodrigo Rodriguez, the Honorary President of the UEA, made a formal presentation at the Forum on the impact of enlargement on labour-intensive sectors from the perspective of the competitiveness of the furniture producers. Several other furniture industry representatives attended the Forum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1840/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Water purification plants in Brussels

In its reply to my oral question H-0355/98(1) the Commission said it did not consider that the Belgian authorities had complied with their obligations stemming from the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC(2), and in particular with Article 17. In its role as the Guardian of the Treaty, the Commission had therefore taken the necessary steps towards an infringement procedure under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Have the Belgian authorities since complied with the requirements of the directive, and what has been the outcome of the Commission's infringements proceedings?

(1) Written answer of 31 March 1998.

(2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Belgium is late in implementing Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1999 on urban waste water treatment(1). Besides Brussels, many other big agglomerations in Flanders and Wallonia still lack appropriate urban waste water treatment. The Commission has taken action following a dual track process.

A first infringement procedure was opened in 1998 because of the incorrect content of the programme for the implementation of the Directive. The Commission action has led to the condemnation of Belgium by the Court of Justice of the European Communities by a judgement delivered on 6 July 2000(2).

A second infringement procedure was opened in 1999 because of the delayed implementation of the Directive in respect of the building of sewers and waste-water treatment plants in sensitive areas.

In the case of Brussels-Capital a waste water treatment plant, that purifies the waste water of 360 000 population equivalent (p.e.) has been constructed. However the second treatment plant with a foreseen capacity of 1 100 000 p.e., is still in the planning phase. The region of Brussels-Capital plans to be in conformity with the Directive in 2005. As the region of Brussels is identified as discharging into a sensitive area, the above requirements of the directive should have been met by 31 December 1998.

With regard to Article 17 the Brussels authorities have provided the Commission with an implementation programme, but the programme is still insufficient regarding the collecting system.

A reasoned opinion was notified to Belgium in 2000. The Commission decided to refer this case to the Court of Justice at its last infringement meeting.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) Case C-236/99, Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium, not yet published, http://curia.eu.int/en/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Funding for demonstration

Could the Commission confirm whether or not any funds from any EU budget line were used to finance any activity associated with the demonstration in May in London protesting about proposed Marks & Spencer closure?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has not granted any subsidy under budget line B3-4000 (Industrial Relations and Social Dialogue), B3-4002 (Information and training measures for workers' organisations) or B3-4003 (Information, consultation and participation of representatives of undertakings) for any activity which had the aim to organize or support a demonstration in May 2001 in London protesting about proposed Marks & Spencer closure.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2173/01

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2001)

Subject: The internal market and the euro area credit card system

The commission charged for the use of credit cards continues to operate on a country-by-country basis.

When is the Commission going to propose legislation designed to create a single market in this field, thereby enabling businesses which establish contracts with credit card issuers (VISA, Mastercard, etc.) to do so where it is most advantageous for them and not compulsorily in their own country, as is currently the case?

As an example, an Accord group hotel in France has agreed a rate of less than 1 % with VISA, whereas in Portugal the rate is 5 %. How does the internal market function in this area?

What we are concerned with here is the full range of goods and services which are paid for by credit card and the major impact which this matter has on the inflation rate, consumers' purchasing power and, in particular, the profits of SMEs.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2001)

After the single market and the single currency, the Commission considers that their essential accompaniment, the single payments area, must be established. Within such an area any payment in euros would be treated like any similar domestic or cross-border transaction. With this aim in mind, the Commission adopted on 25 July 2001 a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on cross-border payments in euros(1). The proposal stipulates in particular that charges levied by retailers for cross-border card payments must not be higher than those levied on domestic card payments.

On the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member concerning relations with credit card issuers, the Commission would point out that the rules applied by the VISA and Eurocard-MasterCard networks now allow banks to sign up businesses in another Member State (including businesses whose sales outlets are located in a single Member State).

(1) COM(2001) 439 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2337/01

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Internal restructuring of OLAF

On 3 July, as part of its internal restructuring, the European Union's Office to combat corruption and fraud affections the EU's financial interests (OLAF) introduced a new structure for its directorate C, which is to deal with intelligence, operational strategies and information technologies.

What are the specific tasks of this directorate?

Will it be managing sensitive data? What procedures will it be using?

In view of the clear implications as regards privacy, does the Commission not think that adequate monitoring of these procedures is necessary and that it would therefore be useful to introduce regulated supervision of them by the European Parliament as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

The new Directorate C of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is in charge of the Office's IT infrastructure and of gathering and analysing all information that is relevant to its functions.

In this context Directorate C is interested only in data that is directly or indirectly linked with the forms of conduct described in Article 2 of Decision No 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom(1) and Article 1 of Regulations Nos 1073/1999 and 1074/1999(2), including personal data. Data is either transmitted by public authorities or gathered in the course of the Office's investigations. It is also gathered from open sources (commercial databases, Internet etc.).

Data protection is organised in accordance with Regulation No 45/2001(3). The designation of a data protection officer is in motion. A European data protection controller is established by that Regulation as an independent control authority.

Article 8 of Regulations Nos 1073/1999 and 1074/1999 requires the Director of the Office to ensure that his staff comply with Community and national provisions relating to data protection, particularly as regards the data to which Directive 95/46/EC(4) applies, and the Supervisory Committee monitors compliance with that Article.

(1) Commission Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999).

(2) Parliament and Council Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999).

(3) Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001).

(4) Parliament and Council Directive No 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Income tax rates

Does the Commission have any evidence about the revenue-maximising top marginal income tax rate in any or all of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2001)

The Commission has no data about tax revenue produced by the top marginal income tax rate in force in each Member State, nor on the rates which would be likely to produce maximum revenue. Such data have to do with the tax bases as well as different tax provisions

which fall entirely under the Member States' competence. Moreover, it would be misleading to consider the top marginal income tax rate in isolation from other aspects of the tax law. In particular the progressiveness of the income tax schedule, the laying out of exemptions (e.g. for some social security benefits), tax deductions such as family allowances and special schemes for capital income or real estate may affect significantly the level of tax revenue.

For information purposes, the top rates of personal income tax expressed as per cent of taxable income and their respective thresholds of income, have been calculated and a copy is sent direct to the Honourable member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Because of the complexities mentioned above, there are various ways of computing such rates. An important parameter to consider relates to the fact that, in some Member States, regional and/or municipal income taxes are levied in addition to state income tax. For these Member States, the average rate of the regional and/or municipal income taxes has been added to the top marginal state income tax in order to get the total top marginal income tax rate. For Spain however, the average rate of regional income tax has been replaced in the calculation with the top regional tax rate provided for by default by national legislation. The span of the regional and/or municipal tax rates are indicated in the last column of the table sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, as per cent of taxable income, except for Belgium where it consists of a surcharge as per cent of the state tax. Overall, these figures show large differentiations of top marginal tax rates applied by Member States.