ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Internet advertising trends

What is the amount spent on advertising on the Internet in each Member State, and what was spent one year, two years, and three years before?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2226/99 and E-2229/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

There are no official consolidated Community figures available, either for styles of Internet access or for Internet advertising revenues. This is due to the very dramatic growth in the level of Internet usage and to the speed of change in the form of usage.

There are figures available from a variety of other sources which provide an idea of the growth and geographical distribution of Internet usage. The different sources however often provide quite different estimates even when referring to the same country. Even from the same source the figures may not indeed even be comparable year to year because the methodologies are changed and as what is being monitored continues to change constantly.

The ITU (www.itu.int) has produced figures that underline the impressive growth at the global level:

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Nua Ltd. in Ireland (www.unua.ie) provides a useful consolidation of various industry estimates related to the Internet. They provide estimates for usage and for advertising revenue, from a number of sources.

GlobalReach in California (glreach.com) gives Internet usage figures in terms of the distribution between countries. However it is interesting to note that they give prominence in their analysis to linguistic groupings rather than national boundaries (i.e. to French-speakers rather than France, to Portuguese-speakers rather than Portugal).

GVU (www.gvu.gatech.edu) has various figures related to the primary place of access to the Internet workplace, home, etc. in Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Internet access

What is the percentage of households in each Member State which have access to the Internet at the most recent date, and what was the similar percentage one year, two years and three years previously? If it is possible to indicate what proportion of households have access at home and what proportion through their place of work, please do so.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2226/99 and E-2229/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

There are no official consolidated Community figures available, either for styles of Internet access or for Internet advertising revenues. This is due to the very dramatic growth in the level of Internet usage and to the speed of change in the form of usage.

There are figures available from a variety of other sources which provide an idea of the growth and geographical distribution of Internet usage. The different sources however often provide quite different estimates even when referring to the same country. Even from the same source the figures may not indeed even be comparable year to year because the methodologies are changed and as what is being monitored continues to change constantly.

The ITU (www.itu.int) has produced figures that underline the impressive growth at the global level:

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Nua Ltd. in Ireland (www.unua.ie) provides a useful consolidation of various industry estimates related to the Internet. They provide estimates for usage and for advertising revenue, from a number of sources.

GlobalReach in California (glreach.com) gives Internet usage figures in terms of the distribution between countries. However it is interesting to note that they give prominence in their analysis to linguistic groupings rather than national boundaries (i.e. to French-speakers rather than France, to Portuguese-speakers rather than Portugal).

GVU (www.gvu.gatech.edu) has various figures related to the primary place of access to the Internet workplace, home, etc. in Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Rail travel standards

In view of the Commission's responsibilities for public health within the European Union and in particular the Treaty requirements that the Community shall contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection through specific action which supports and supplements the policy pursued by the Member States to protect public health, is there or should there be any minimum standard applied to the availability of toilet facilities on trains, and what is the current practice in each of the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any legally binding standards regarding the availability of toilets in trains or wagons. However the International union of railways (UIC), via its leaflet 563 (obligatory, though not in

full, for its members), sets standards on toilets which include a minimum of one toilet per passenger coach, or two in the case of coaches with more than 40 seats, each toilet to be equipped with a washbasin, a minimum room temperature of 20 °, the installation to follow ergonomic and aesthetic principles, a minimum size of 1,20 to 0,90 m2, a minimum distance of 500 mm between the toilet seat and the wall, and other specifications regarding the technical installations (hot water, availability of water and electricity).

Given that all main railway undertakings are members of UIC, and not having heard of any difficulties in respect of the availability of toilets, the Commission does not see the need for legally binding minimum standards on a European level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/99

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: COM in bananas

On 10 November 1999 the Commission presented a proposal aimed at reforming the common organisation of the market in bananas with a view to complying with WTO rules. The scheme envisaged is organised in two stages, with the tariff quota being retained in the first and an exclusively tariff-based system being automatically introduced as of 1 January 2006.

This scheme makes unacceptable concessions to producers in the Latin American countries, while failing to take genuine account of the interests of Community producers and undertakings made by the Community vis-à-vis its African, Caribbean and Pacific partners.

Furthermore, the Council appears to be very divided on the Commission proposal: France, Spain and Portugal do not regard the tariff approach as a viable basis for negotiation. Tens of thousands of jobs are threatened by it (including 30 000 in the French overseas departments and 35 000 in the Canaries!).

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the interests of Community and ACP-country producers are protected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The proposal for amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on common organisation of the market in bananas(1) was adopted by the Commission on 10 November 1999(2). The reasoning behind the proposal is set out at length in the accompanying explanatory memorandum.

In the Commission's opinion it maintains a balance between the Community's various obligations.

A substantial tariff preference for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries should enable them to maintain their traditional export levels.

The memorandum also states that additional measures can if necessary be envisaged for the weakest and most banana-dependent ACP countries in particular.

No change is proposed to the provisions on Community production. Growers will still be able to benefit fully from the compensatory aid scheme.

The proposal will be thoroughly discussed in the Council and Parliament.

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

(2) COM(1999) 582 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2761/99

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Subsidies for ferry services to islands (Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to subsidy C/64/99 formerly NN 68/99)

Having regard to the following:

- the purpose of the subsidies referred to above is to ensure, in connection with ferry services to islands, territorial continuity between them and the mainland;

- the principle of territorial continuity, which is the object of the above subsidies, is naturally based on the quality and quantity of the aforementioned ferry services;

- in Italy, services to and from Sardinia, which are provided by the company Tirrenia, and those to and from the smaller islands, which are provided by Caremar, Toremar and Siremar, have recently been carried out by prototypes of high-speed vessels known as HSCs;

- the above ferry companies are recipients of the subsidies in question, in connection with the services that they provide;

- the design characteristics of the above HSC prototypes, however, mean that they are not only subject to major constraints on sailing, by comparison with traditional ferries and hydrofoils, in equivalent adverse weather conditions, but are also frequently taken out of service for special maintenance work;

- the constraints on sailing and the frequent stoppages of the HSC prototypes owned by the above companies actually breach the principle of territorial continuity, which is essential for the payment of the subsidy referred to above,

can the Commission state whether the above facts are true? In addition, can it take action vis-à-vis the competent authorities, if need be, to ensure that the quality and quantity of ferry services to islands reflect the principle of territorial continuity, the sole criterion for determining the admissibility of the subsidies?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Concerning the principle of territorial continuity, the Commission would stress that the respect of such principle lies within national competence.

Concerning the state aid case No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99), the Commission is currently examining subsidy payments to Gruppo Tirrenia. The opening of the investigation procedure was published in the Official journal(1). Since the Commission has not closed the investigation procedure yet, it is not yet possible to take position on the accuracy of the statements made in the Honourable Member's question, in particular on the aspect of the use of high speed vessels.

Nevertheless, in the framework of the aforementioned procedure the Commission is going to take account of aspects concerning the use of high speed vessels.

(1) OJ C 306, 23.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0063/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings

Could the Commission clarify whether the Directive 1999/85/EC(1), providing for an experimental reduced rate of VAT for selected labour-intensive services, has in any way affected the Commission's position regarding the reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings?

Could the Commission also clarify the position regarding the reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings?

(1) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999, p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

In principle, current Community legislation does not allow Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to services consisting of repairs to historic buildings as such.

Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services(1) allows Member States that have submitted an appropriate request to apply reduced rates to labour-intensive services on an experimental basis from 1 January 2000 to

31 December 2002, on condition, of course, that they satisfy the conditions laid down in particular that they are provided direct to final consumers and are covered by the list of eligible sectors.

The Council changed the Commission's proposal(2) by introducing an exhaustive list which in the building sector covers only services consisting of the renovation and repairing of private dwellings, excluding materials which form a significant part of the value of the service supplied.

Following the Council's decision, work to repair historic buildings will qualify for VAT reductions, but only where the buildings contain private dwellings and the Member State has made a request. The Member States that have made requests are Belgium, Spain (for masonry work only), France, Italy, the Netherlands (for painting and plastering only), Portugal and the United Kingdom (for the Isle of Man only).

(1) OJ C 102, 13.4.1999.

(2) COM(99) 705 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0134/00

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Influencing of staff of DG XX (Financial Control) during inquiries by the European Court of Auditors

The web page of Renouveau & Democratie includes the following questions to the Commission:

- Is it true that prior to checks by the European Court of Auditors on the DG for Financial Control the management of the DG distributes a list of possible questions and suggested answers?

- Is it true that staff are asked to report to management on the substance of the talks they have with the Court of Auditors?

If the answers are in the affirmative can the Commission answer these questions:

- what were the standard questions and suggested answers?

- does the Commission agree that this procedure is an impediment to proper checks by the Court of Auditors since it is impossible for staff to answer entirely freely?

- what action does the Commission intend to take in response to this procedure, and when?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The list of questions which was distributed was not possible questions but, at the request of the Court of Auditors, a questionnaire prepared by the audit team of the Court of Auditors. Also, what was put on the Intranet of DG Financial Control to be used as a basis for obtaining information were not suggested answers but the answers to the same questionnaire by a unit of DG Financial Control.

Yes, the staff is required to report to management the substance of the talks they have with the Court of Auditors.

The Commission must preserve the confidentiality of the work of the Court of Auditors.

No, because the staff had and has both the duty to answer fully the requests or questions presented by the Court of Auditors and the freedom to express their opinion to the Court of Auditors in writing or orally.

No action is required.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Case of the unmarked oxen in Sweden

Per and Pål are two oxen for which the Swedish Board of Agriculture has refused exemption from the requirement that cattle must have plastic tags fitted to their ears.

The owners are willing to tattoo their oxen's ears but they consider that, as the oxen are genuine cultural exhibits of living Swedish agricultural history which the local museum and folklore centre affirm having plastic tags in their ears is both historically and ethically incorrect when the pair are representing agriculture in a bygone age on a museum holding in a nature reserve in Sweden. There are only three pairs of oxen with horns in Sweden and the owners maintain that it should therefore be possible to distinguish them from others in any case.

What view does the Commission take? Does it consider that an exemption can be granted?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-136/00 by Mr Schörling during question time at Parliament's February 2000 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (February 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/00

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Monitoring of the referendum in Western Sahara

For more than seven years, the Sahrawi people have been waiting for news from the Moroccan authorities about a referendum on the future of Western Sahara. The Moroccan authorities have more than once broken agreements they had with Polisario regarding the date of the referendum. However, registration of those entitled to vote has now resumed, and a referendum campaign is being planned that is expected to be concluded on 31 July 2000, which is also the date on which the referendum is scheduled to take place. The risk of electoral fraud is great, and an international team of monitors needs to be sent in order to ensure that the referendum takes place in a democratic manner. Will the Commission assist in monitoring the referendum on the future of Western Sahara?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is keeping track of developments in the implementation of the plan adopted by the UN Security Council for the settlement of the Western Sahara conflict. The UN Secretary-General's efforts to find a just, equitable and lasting solution for the Western Sahara have its full support. It is therefore ready to provide assistance at every stage of the planned settlement. On the specific issue of the referendum, the Commission is aware that its organisation is threatened by problems with the finalisation of the electoral lists. As the UN Security Council pointed out in resolution 1282/99 of 14 December 1999, these problems ... seem to allow little possibility of holding the referendum before 2002 or even beyond.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0024/00

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Aid to French departments hit by storms

Two violent storms hit France between 25 and 27 December 1999, killing more than 80 people and depriving thousands of households of electricity, heating, running water and telephone lines for several days.

Stock is now being taken of the situation in the most seriously affected departments (Charente-Maritime, Charente, Haute-Vienne, Creuse, Gironde, Dordogne, Corrèze, Landes and Seine-et-Marne), and the damage is estimated at over FF 40 bn. It will take weeks for normal services to be fully restored.

Although a large proportion of the costs will be covered by insurance companies, the worst-hit departments will still need to pay out huge sums to help with the reconstruction of devastated areas and repair the extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure.

Is the European Union prepared, on an exceptional basis, to establish an emergency fund to provide the affected French departments with financial aid?

Will the Commission give priority to the worst-hit departments and areas when it next determines which parts of France should be eligible for Structural Fund aid?

In a longer-term perspective, does the Commission intend to reintroduce the budget line for aid in the event of natural disasters, which was removed a few years ago?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to her oral question H-8/00 during Question Time in the January 2000 part-session, and to Parliament's debate on the storms in Europe and the Resolution adopted on 20 January 2000(1).

Moreover, under the new Structural Funds Regulation(2), the Commission and the Member State are jointly responsible for defining which areas are eligible under Objective 2. Each Member State must propose to the Commission a list of areas it considers to be priorities. Acting on the proposal submitted by the French authorities, the Commission therefore took a decision of principle on the list of areas eligible under Objective 2 on 18 January 2000.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (January 2000).

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0197/00

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Reduction of the VAT rate for labour-intensive services

As part of the European experiment to reduce VAT on a number of labour-intensive services, the VAT rate, inter alia for hairdressers, was reduced from 17,5 % to 6 % in the Netherlands on 1 January 2000.

Reports in the press, including from the Dutch hairdressers association, ANKO, indicate that a large number of hairdressers are not passing this VAT reduction on to consumers.

1. Does the Commission share the view that as a result the aim of the directive, which is to reduce moonlighting and create more jobs, is being thwarted?

2. Does the Commission consider that the criteria of Article 1 of the directive are not satisfied if prices are not being reduced as a consequence of the reduction in the tax rate?

3. What does the Commission intend to do in this case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Commission has not to date been informed of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

Job creation is indeed the aim of Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experiment basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services(1). However, the measure is an experiment, which must demonstrate that a VAT reduction actually helps achieve that objective.

It is for the national authorities to take the necessary steps to put the experiment into effect.

The results must then be assessed by the Member States and reported to the Commission, which will analyse them with a view to deciding on follow-up action.

(1) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/00

by Ewa Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Situation regarding imports of game and wildfowl from Russia

The EU has not yet authorised imports of game from Russia on the grounds that there have been occasional instances of foot-and-mouth disease and Newcastle disease in some parts of the country. However, those diseases are not present, and reportedly have never been present, in the northern regions which are of interest to Nordic importers of game among others. The procedure for providing veterinary documentation in Russia, however, is inadequate, which has led to delays in assessing various regions in that country. The process of assessing northern Russia has lasted several years and no findings are forthcoming.

What information can the Commission provide about the current situation in this regard to enable Nordic importers of game, among others, to obtain clarification of the conditions applying to imports of game from northern Russia?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

Commission Decision 97/217/EC of 28 February 1997, lays down groups of third countries, or parts thereof, which are authorised to use the veterinary certification for imports of wild game meat, farmed game meat and rabbit meat from third countries(1).

A Community veterinary inspection mission has been carried out in the Russian region of Murmansk, to assess the animal and public health situation as regards the possible imports into the Community of wild cloven-hoofed game meat, excepting swine. The mission's findings were encouraging and the guarantees given by the national authorities satisfactory.

This allowed the Commission to amend by Decision 2000/161/EC of 14 February 2000(2) the above-mentioned decision to authorise the imports of farmed reindeer meat from the Russian region of Murmansk.

As a consequence, and following the adoption of the list of Russian establishments from which Member States authorise the import of farmed game meat, as per Commission Decision 00/161/EC of 14 February 2000 amending Decision 97/217/EC2, Russia will be in a position to export farmed game meat to the Community from the approved establishments of the Murmansk region.

(1) OJ L 88, 3.4.1997.

(2) OJ L 51, 24.2.2000.