ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Compensation for companies hit by the EU and US banana dispute

Will the Commission be paying compensation to those companies within the EU who have been affected by the US tariffs imposed as a direct consequence of the EU and US banana dispute, and if so at what level?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1001/00, E-1002/00 and E-1003/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it does not see any possibility to grant compensation to those companies within the Community which have been affected by the increase in American tariffs.

The Commission is aware of the serious consequences these measures can have on those affected and is determined to resolve the issue with the greatest possible dispatch.

The Commission presented on 10 November 1999 to the Council and the Parliament a proposal to amend its banana import regulations(1) so as to be in full conformity with World Trade Organisation rules.

In parallel the Commission has explored whether a solution could be found to the dispute with the parties involved. In particular, at the end of March 2000, Commission representatives met with their American counterparts in Washington. This meeting, however, was inconclusive and showed how difficult it is to agree a mutually acceptable system.

The Commission would like to confirm that no efforts are spared to end this dispute in the shortest possible timeframe. The Commission hopes that the Parliament will support these endeavours by voting rapidly its opinion on the Commission proposal of 10 November 1999.

(1) COM(1999) 582 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1801/00

by Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Unlawful provision of state aid to Post Danmark by the Danish government

1. Is the Commission aware that the Danish government is providing state aid to Post Danmark for the postal distribution of newspapers and periodicals at especially low prices?

2. Is it also aware that the rules governing the relevant aid scheme were substantially amended by the Danish government in its Decree of 23 February 2000, which entered into force on 1 April 2000, the result being that aid is now provided on a discriminatory basis, with some newspapers and periodicals benefiting at others' expense?

3. Can it confirm that the amendments to the aid scheme have been notified to it for approval in accordance with Article 88 (3) of the EC Treaty?

4. If not, does it agree that the aid scheme is unlawful under the EC Treaty?

5. Does it also agree that the scheme, even if it has been notified, is incompatible with the common market, when it clearly and significantly distorts competition between newspapers and periodicals that receive state aid and those that do not?

6. What action does it intend to take with regard to this aid scheme?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of state aid being granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for the distribution of press at reduced tariffs, nor is it aware of the amendments introduced by the Danish authorities by the Decree of 23 February 2000, as reported by the Honourable Member.

The measure reported by the Honourable Member has not been notified to the Commission for prior approval under the Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) EC Treaty procedure. As such, should it contain state aid in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) EC Treaty, such aid would have to be considered as illegal.

As regards the alleged presence of state aid and its compatibility with the common market, the Commission can not prejudge its position, as it is not aware of the nature of the reported scheme.

The Commission will write to the Danish authorities for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/00

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Upper age limit for commercial pilots

Is the Commission aware of the imposition by the French Government of an upper age limit for commercial pilots flying over French airspace?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission is aware of the situation in France with regard to age limits for pilots.

At present flight crew licences are recognised for the purpose of overflying and landing of international civil flights, provided they are issued in accordance with Annex I to the Chicago Convention. This Annex contains a standard, which prohibits the exercise of pilot-in-command duties on commercial flights beyond the age of 60 years and carries a recommendation that over-sixties should not fulfil co-pilot duties on such flights. Accordingly, while certain States have filed a difference to Annex I to the Convention in order to allow their own licences to remain valid for exercising duties on board commercial airplanes beyond this limit, there are no powers which can oblige other States to accept this difference for the overflight of their territory.

The Joint Aviation Authorities work on the harmonisation of flight crew licensing rules produced a compromise, which allows licences to remain valid for exercising duties on board commercial airplanes until their holders are 65, provided that they operate such duties on multi-crew airplanes where the other pilot is aged less than 60 years. Nevertheless such a compromise is not binding on JAA Member States and they still can decide not to accept overflight of their territory by commercial planes in which the pilot in command is more than 60 years of age.

Commission services will present in the coming months a proposal to harmonise standards and requirements for flight crew licensing throughout the Community. They have declared their willingness to adhere as much as possible to the proposal of the JAA, including age limits, but obviously it is not possible to prejudge the final decision that the Commission might take in the light of the necessary consultations. Moreover, this proposal will be further discussed in the Parliament and the Council. There can therefore be no certainty about the final result.

In summary, as long as the rules on flight crew licensing have not been harmonised at Community level, each Member State is free to lay down its own rules on the issue. Of course, the rules have to comply with the general principles of Community law such as, non discrimination and proportionality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Typical products and food policy

The introduction of a European food policy presupposes action to protect high-quality typical products and ensure they have the special features associated with local specialities. Such products guarantee a high level of health and consumer protection. This certainly does not apply to the 6 million quintals of grated cheese sold under the Parmesan label despite the fact that it has no connection with Parma, as it is produced in areas which have none of the characteristics of the region where Parmiggiano Reggiano cheese originated and by methods other than those that have always been used there.

In view of the forthcoming implementation of a food safety programme:

1. Will the Commission continue to allow the Parmesan name to be used for a product that can be made from almost any kind of milk and contains up to 30 additives, including whitening agents, antioxidants and a variety of preservatives?

2. Will the Commission guarantee, on the other hand, that the cheese known as Parmiggiano Reggiano is made from milk from the valleys which give it its name and according to the traditional methods that have been used for hundreds of years?

3. Will the Commission defend typical European products from the threat of standardisation along the lines decreed by the big distributors?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission considers that the term Parmesan is a translation, originally among French-speakers, for the protected name Parmigiano-Reggiano. In this light, it is clear that at the end of the transition period expressly provided for in Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), i.e. 21 June 2001 in this instance, any use of the term Parmesan for products not in conformity with the specifications registered under the above Regulation and corresponding to the protected designation of origin Parmigiano-Reggiano will be prohibited. This will bring the legal position and the commercial situation into line with the Community system for protecting geographical indications and designations of origin.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Slot allocations and regional air services

Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93(1) authorises Member States to allocate a regional air route between its more remote regions and main city airports. However, at present this is only an option and not compulsory.

British Airways has recently withdrawn its regional service between Plymouth and Heathrow, leading to concerns in Plymouth that inward investment will be put at risk (or even lost) because of the lack of an air link to the capital.

Will the Commission indicate if it has any plans to introduce legislation to compel Member States to provide a regional air service to their regions which are at a great distance from the capital?

Can the Commission also indicate its current plans concerning the present slot allocation regulations and say whether there are likely to be any changes in this area?

(1) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The current slot regulation(1) gives the possibility to Member States to ensure that air carriers operating domestic scheduled air services have physical access to congested airports by giving Member States the right to reserve slots at such airports for routes serving a peripheral or development region

in their territory, any such route being considered to be vital for the economic development of the region or for routes where public service obligations have been imposed. Such obligations may be imposed by a Member State according to the provisions of the regulation on market access(2), where for particular regions it is economically vital to ensure that sufficient scheduled air services are provided where otherwise none or unsatisfactory air services would be operated. In both cases it is the competence of Member States to examine the need for such services and reserve the appropriate slots.

The United Kingdom has imposed public service obligations on routes serving the Scottish Highlands and Islands. The service between Plymouth and London Heathrow is a commercial service with no particular conditions attached to it.

The Commission, while preparing its proposal on the revision of the slot regulation announced in its work programme for 2000, will take account of all the aspects affected by the issue of slot allocation.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18.1.1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ L 14, 22.1.1993).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23.7.1992 on access to Community air carriers to intra-Community routes (OJ L 240, 24.8.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Residence of EU nationals in another Member State

Will the Commission please state the number of nationals of each Member State resident in each of the other Member States for each year for the last ten years for which figures are available?

Will it also state the number of non-EU nationals in each Member State in each year for ten years, indicating, if possible, the number of US nationals?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1680/00

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: VAT on work done under contract

When an undertaking established in Member State A sends goods to Member State B for work to be done on them by an independent contractor, and then on completion of the work the goods are sent directly on behalf of the undertaking in Member State A to the buyer in Member State C:

- according to the sixth VAT directive, must the undertaking in Member State A identify itself to the VAT authorities in Member State B?

- If so, are there any simplifying measures to avoid the undertaking in Member State A having to identify itself in Member State B? Should a distinction be made depending on whether the contractor has invoiced the work to the undertaking in Member State A or to its final customer in Member State C?

- If there are any simplifying measures, where have they been published? Have all the Member States adopted them?

- If there are simplifying measures and the Commission has not published them, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The first thing to bear in mind is that the concept of job processing, as referred to in former Article 5(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC)(1), and the treatment of such operations as supplies of goods, was repealed on 1 January 1996 by Article 1(1) of Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures with regard to value added tax scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for implementing them(2). This means that job processing has, since 1 January 1996, been regarded as the supply of services in respect of movable tangible property.

In the example given by the Honourable Member, the place of supply of services by the job processor is determined in accordance with Article 28b(F) of the Sixth VAT Directive and depends on the person to whom the services are supplied. If the job processor supplies services to a firm registered for VAT in Member State A, the place of taxation will be Member State A. If, however, the services are invoiced to an end purchaser registered for VAT in Member State C, tax will be payable in Member State C. In either case, the person liable for the VAT is the person to whom the services are supplied, in accordance with Article 21(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive. Therefore, neither the firm registered for VAT in Member State A nor that registered in Member State C is under any obligation to make itself known to the VAT authorities in Member State B.

If, however, the goods are shipped to another Member State, the VAT implications depend on the contractual relationship between the parties concerned.

After the adoption of Directive 95/7/EC the VAT Committee reviewed the interpretation of the new provisions to check that the simplifications agreed for job processing in 1993 could still be applied, but the Member States failed to reach unanimous agreement.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) OJ L 102, 5.5.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (II)

Indeed there was no call to doubt Mr Schüssel's European-mindedness. However, it is a grotesque situation if a country like Austria is forced to testify several times to its pro-European stance. The continuing refusal of the 14 other Member States to enter into a dialogue with Austria is poisoning the European ideal of civilised cooperation.

In spite of Austria's very restrained and cooperative attitude so far, Portugal cannot see itself altering its policy towards Austria. The Portuguese Presidency is not according to press reports reckoning on the sanctions by 14 Member States against Austria being lifted at the EU summit in June. It said there was no reason to alter its policy towards Austria.

In July France will take over the Council Presidency from Portugal. The French Minister for European Affairs, Pierre Moscovici, has already said that his government will not move away from the sanctions against Austria.

At the same time, however, at the Foreign Ministers' meeting in the Azores, it became clear that the EU Member States are no longer united behind the sanctions imposed at the end of January. Representatives of Finland, Spain, Ireland and Italy among others called for the position towards the government in Vienna to be reconsidered.

That being so, does the Council intend given the helpful attitude of the Austrian government and the doubts expressed by some Member States to abandon this senseless and uncivilised sanctions strategy?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not given its views on this subject and is therefore not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Millennium Forum, Summit and Assembly in New York

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the proposals that will be put forward by the Millennium Forum in May this year will be seriously considered by the Millennium Summit and Assembly later in the year and also to ensure that the proposals become plans for actions and do not remain merely talking points with good intentions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0918/00 and E-1108/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission expects that the proposals to be made by the Millennium Forum in May 2000 will be presented at the Millennium Summit by a spokesman for the Forum. The Commission also expects that such proposals will be discussed in the round-table discussions, the reports of which will be annexed to the Millennium Summit declaration.

The Commission fully recognizes the opportunity offered by the 2000 Millennium General Assembly and Summit Meeting of the United Nations to address shared international concerns for peace, sustainable development and poverty reduction.

The Commission is of course open to taking on board such proposals to the extent that they are compatible with Community policies and within the limits of the Commission's competences.

With regard to the organisational aspects of reform and strengthening the United Nations to increase efficiency and accountability, the Commission plays its role in the coordination with regard to Community decision-making in this area, as well as in the external representation of the Community's position on these issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Duty on the transport of fuel across borders

1. Could the Commission please confirm that import duties are paid on the transport of fuel across borders?

2. If so, could the Commission explain why iport duties are imposed on the transport of fuel across borders whereas they are not imposed in relation to the transport of alcohol across borders?

3. Does the Commission agree that this arrangement contradicts the fundamental principle of free trade and the single market?

4. Does the Commission have any plans to extend single market principles to the fuel trade?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

1. and 2. In the situation described by the Honourable Member, the import duty in question is actually the excise duty payable on the release for home use of a product subject to excise duty in a Member State.

The taxation of intra-Community movements by Union citizens of products subject to excise duties is dealt with in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1). According to that Article, where private individuals acquire and transport products for their own use, the principle governing the internal market requires that excise duty be charged in the Member State in which the products are acquired.

However, Article 9(3) of the same Directive allows the Member States to provide for excise duty to be chargeable in the Member State of consumption on the acquisition of mineral oils already released for consumption in another Member State if such products are transported using atypical modes of transport by private individuals or on their behalf. Atypical transport in this instance means the transport of fuels other than in the tanks of vehicles or in appropriate reserve fuel canisters and the transport of liquid heating products other than by means of tankers used on behalf of professional traders.

The scope for different tax treatment of acquisitions of mineral oils is in particular due to the hazards of transporting mineral oils. Since the need to comply with particularly strict safety measures entails the use of special vehicles, the condition of transport by the private individual, which is a precondition for the exemption provided for in Article 8, is no longer fulfilled.

3. and 4. In view of the answer to questions 1 and 2, the Commission feels that the arrangements described are not contrary to the principles of the internal market and does not intend to propose that they be modified.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, last amended by Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996 (OJ L 8, 11.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/00

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Ill-treatment

Alleged ill-treatment in all kinds of families is reported in the media with depressing regularity.

Such cases of violence, perhaps particularly those involving physical violence and ill-treatment, demonstrate the need for an immediate response and for means of defence, which are frequently not available to the weakest side in the troubled family.

Has the Commission considered encouraging the provision of immediate means and mechanisms of defence across the EU, for example through the drawing-up of agreements with the government departments responsible for social affairs and justice?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

The Commission is aware of the seriousness of the phenomenon of domestic violence. Since 1996, it has undertaken a number of activities to assist the Member States in their efforts to stem this problem. In particular, in 1999 the Commission launched a European campaign in which the Member States were actively involved to raise awareness of violence against women in the Community. They participated in the distribution of campaign material and in the conferences organised in Cologne in March 1999 and in Lisbon in May 2000 which respectively launched and closed the campaign. In addition, a meeting of experts related to the campaign was organised under the Finnish Presidency in October 1999, and took place in Jyväskylä, Finland.

The Commission reiterated its commitment to helping to solve this problem in the new Community framework strategy on gender equality, adopted on 7 June 2000, by pledging to strengthen and support the fight against and prevention of violence against women(1).

The encouragement of immediate means and mechanisms across Europe is one of the objectives of the Daphne programme, which promotes the prevention and the fight against violence against children, young people and women by transnational actions. Started in 1997, the Daphne initiative has now funded around 150 transnational projects, of which a number directly tackle domestic violence via, amongst other things, the setting up of partnerships and networks between non governmental organisations (NGOs) and local public authorities across the Community. The new Daphne programme will run from 2000 until 2003 and will pursue similar objectives, ensuring a smooth continuation in this fight.

The Commission would finally like to remind the Honourable Member that it does not have the competence to propose legislative measures, as this is the responsibility of Member States.

(1) COM(2000) 335 final.