ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0042/01

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Refusal by Swiss firms to supply spare parts to clock- and watchmakers in the EU Member States

Many clock- and watchmakers in the EU whose customers bring them watches and clocks to be repaired find it difficult to carry out these repairs because Swiss watch and clock manufacturers, who in any case have a general agency in EU countries, refuse to supply spare parts, in case the clock- and watchmakers do not have contracts with the particular manufacturers.

To what extent does this attitude constitute unlawful discrimination against various clock- and watchmakers, and to what extent can the Commission intervene to prevent this practice, which is obstructing people in carrying out their work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Under block exemption Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices(1) selective distribution systems as described in the question are exempted from the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty when the manufacturer's share of the relevant market does not exceed 30 %. Below this threshold it is considered that the possible negative effects on competition will usually be minimal or non-existent and are outweighed by the expected positive effects resulting, for instance, from better service by trained staff. Above that threshold an individual examination to assess possible anti-competitive effects, or enhancement of efficiency, may be required.

In order to be covered by the block exemption, the selective distribution agreement must in addition fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation. The most important requirement (Article 4(2)) in respect of the question raised by the Honourable Member is that the watch manufacturer may not impose a restriction on the sale of spare parts to independent repairers if these spare parts are not produced by the watch manufacturer himself. In other words, if these spare parts are produced by another undertaking, attempts by the watch manufacturer to oblige that undertaking to supply him alone could result in withdrawal of the block exemption

(1) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0024/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Suspension of customs tariffs on tuna loin

Last year the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal on the common organisation of the market in the fisheries sector in which it advocated suspending the customs tariffs on tuna loin. This proposal was opposed by the Community's tuna loin producing sector, as well as by certain Member States, with the result that the Council reached agreement on the basis of the views set out in an independent report

commissioned by the Commission, which noted that the market was adequately supplied and that the shortfall could be estimated at 4 000 tonnes. The Commission has never explained why it placed at risk a whole fishing and industrial sector, which had always followed the approach until then favoured by the Community of seeking to boost integration, by tabling such a damaging proposal as the suspension of custom tariffs on tuna loin.

Will the Commission explain what its real motives were in tabling this proposal and what interests it was seeking to defend?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission has already given some indications on the factors leading it to submit the proposal concerned in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0756/00(1).

The increasing demand for loin has been partly met by a steady increase in imports from non-member countries. The Commission deduces from this fact that the major trend on the Community market for fishery products towards increasing dependence on non-member countries for supplies of raw materials is also occurring on the tuna market.

The study also confirms that the Community firms using tuna loin as a raw material for producing preserves are thereby improving their competitiveness both inside the Community and on the international market. The study vindicates the Commission's opinion that this improved competitiveness is all the more necessary given that certain tuna-canning firms in the Community will have to carry out structural adjustments if they are to secure any long-term viability.

Lastly, the Commission is aware of a real supply deficit which, although limited, can have a seasonal impact on the Community market in this product.

In 2000, as in previous years, the Commission submitted proposals to open restricted quotas for tuna loin, and the Council adopted them, thereby opening the quotas.

As far as the medium term is concerned, the Council and the Commission made a joint statement on 17 December 1999, to the effect that a multiannual quota of 4 000 tonnes at 6 % duty would be opened for 2001-2003. This quota will allow the Community tuna-canning industry to cope with the supply deficit mentioned above. For those Community firms which must carry out structural adjustments, it will also ease the transition to greater competitiveness on the Community and international markets.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0342/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Community contribution to tourist infrastructure in Valesia and on Monterosa

In its answer to my Written Question P-3610/00(1), the Commission said that it was not aware of the situation described and would take the appropriate steps to gather detailed information on the subject and ensure compliance with Community law.

60 % of the Community contribution of Lit 4 943 billion for the cableway between Valsesia and Valle di Gressoney has been allocated, with the remainder to be made available once the project has been approved.

This contribution has actually been used for a road rising to a height of 2 500 m, which was built without the necessary authorisations and about which the Committee for the Defence of Monterosa has lodged regular complaints with the relevant authorities (without receiving any reply).

Does the Commission not think that the payment of the remainder of the Community contribution should be suspended until the inquiry procedure has been completed, particularly as regards the protection of the site of Community importance concerned by the project in question?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 179.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0615/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Tax

In a recent interview with La Tribune, Commissioner Lamy stated that taxation was at the heart of the problem of coordinating political and economic structures.

Which taxes doe the Commissioner feel need to be coordinated in order to make the EU function better?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission takes the view that, in a single market and an economic and monetary union, certain components of taxation are a matter of common interest. The interview given by the Member of the Commission responsible for trade, to which the question refers, was intended to develop this idea.

As to which taxes have a role in improving the functioning of the Community's internal market, the EC Treaty invites the Commission to propose the measures necessary for the harmonisation of indirect taxation and turnover taxes. Moreover, the Commission obtained the support of Parliament and the Council for a joint initiative on the taxation of savings income and the eradication of business taxation schemes that involve harmful tax competition. The Commission intends to step up this work in the future to ensure that taxation contributes to the smooth running of the internal market and the economic and monetary union, while preserving the power of Member States to finance essential public expenditure. However, the current institutional framework, in which decisions on taxation require unanimity, is not conducive to rapid decision-making in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0026/01

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Changeover of electronic payment systems to use of the euro

Major public information campaigns are planned for 2001 in order to ensure that the changeover from national to euro coins and notes runs as smoothly as possible.

Consumers will unquestionably be encouraged to make more use, wherever possible, of electronic payment systems in order to facilitate the changeover.

Is the Commission aware that such payments are not free of charge, and that the costs are borne by the distribution sector and the consumer? In some Member States, including Belgium, there is a virtual monopoly on the electronic payment systems market. Has the Commission received complaints relating to this? Have inquiries been carried out by the Commission itself? If so, what is the state of affairs? What specific action is the Commission planning to take in the period prior to the actual changeover from national to euro coins and notes in order to prevent abuses of dominant positions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The Commission is aware that electronic payments, like any other means of payment including cash payments, have costs and that these costs may be charged to the users of electronic payment systems, that is merchants and consumers.

The Commission has received a complaint from Unizo (formerly NCMV), a Belgian association of retailers, against Banksys, the operator of the Belgian electronic payment system BanContact/MisterCash. According to Unizo Banksys abuses its dominant position on the Belgian market for electronic payments systems by charging smaller retailers excessive and discriminatory prices. The Commission is investigating the complaint and expects to finalise its examination in the course of this year.

A possible abuse of a dominant position, pursuant to Community competition law, cannot be excluded, a priori, but naturally the Commission can start an examination when there are concrete indications that an undertaking is abusing its dominant position on a certain market. Such an examination can be started both following a complaint or ex officio.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0647/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Employment situation of workers at the Sintel company

For a number of weeks over a thousand Sintel workers have been encamped on Madrid's Paseo de la Castellana, opposite the headquarters of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Science and Technology. They are calling on the Spanish Government to take appropriate action in order to safeguard jobs within their company and ensure that it remains viable in the future, since it directly and indirectly employs thousands of people in all parts of Spain.

The confederal leaders of the two main Spanish trade unions (CC.OO and UGT) and numerous representatives of political, social, intellectual and cultural circles have expressed their support for the Sintel workers and their works council who are engaged in constant industrial action, including the abovementioned camp-out in very difficult conditions caused by a number of factors, in particular the complete lack of cooperation on the part of the Madrid city council leaders.

The safeguarding of jobs, particularly in new-technology companies such as Sintel (which has suffered many setbacks since it was privatised and sold to the now-deceased businessman Jorge Mas Canosa) is essential and is in line with the objectives stated by the EU in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Social Agenda which were proclaimed and studied respectively at the recent Nice Summit.

Is the Commission aware of the situation as described above and if it is not does it intend to acquaint itself with the current state of affairs at Sintel? Does it intend to approach the Spanish Government in order to find out what its views are and what action it is going to take in order to protect jobs at Sintel?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0647/01 and P-0901/01 given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, exercises its powers whenever Community law is concerned.

Industrial restructuring, including the safeguarding of the level of employment, continues to come under the powers of the national authorities, which, where appropriate, exercise these powers within the framework of the national legislation of the Member State concerned.

In any event, it should be pointed out that the provisions on workers' rights, as referred to in Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(1), amended by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998(2) and Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(3), especially concerning information and consultation, must be complied with.

Given that Spain has appropriately transposed these Directives into national law, it is primarily up to the national courts to resolve any disputes arising from this affair.

(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0135/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Labour mobility

Will the Commission indicate any evidence it possesses concerning the extent of labour mobility in the European Union (both within Member States between regions, and between Member States) compared with labour mobility in the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

In 1999, it was estimated that just under 4 % of the population aged over 15 years in the Community were non-nationals of the Member State they lived in. Net migration into the Community represents some 0,2 % of the total population. The equivalent figure for the United States is 0,35 %. Net migration in Japan is negligible (12 000 in a population of 126 million).

In 1997, around a quarter of migrants into Member States were returning nationals, a further 17 % were from other Member States and 57 % were from third countries.

In the United States, between 1998 and 1999, about 1,4 million people (3 % of movers) moved from abroad.

In Europe, it was estimated that in 1996, 1 in 6 people in the labour force changed job, and just over 1½% of the working age population moved between NUTS2(1) regions. Inter-regional migration is much higher in the northern Member States where it averages 2 % or more, than in the southern ones, where it is below 1 %. Young people in their 20s are by far the most mobile (aged between 15 and 24 in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and mobility declines markedly with age.

The United States Census Bureau reports that in 1999, 43 million United States residents (15,9 % of the population) moved to a new residence. This is the lowest figure since these statistics were collected. 59 % moved within the same county, 20 % moved to a different county in the same state, 18 % of movers moved to another state.

The Japanese statistical office reports that in 1999 the number of Japanese internal migrants was 6,1 million persons, a rate of internal migration of 4,93 %. This represented a fall of 1,4 % in comparison to earlier years, the fourth successive annual decline since the data collection began in 1954.

(1) NUTS (Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales et Statistiques).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Illegal detention of a Greek Cypriot by the Turkish Cypriot authorities

On 13 December 2000, a group of Turkish Cypriots kidnapped Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas whilst he was on British military base property and removed him by force to the territory occupied by Turkey, where they abandoned him, leaving with him one-and-a-half kilos of Indian cannabis. Within moments Turkish Cypriot police officers' appeared and arrested him for possession of drugs.

Since then, Mr Panikos Tsiakourmas has been held by the illegal Turkish Cypriot authorities under inhuman conditions and without medical care despite the fact that he suffers from diabetes.

Given that Mr Tsiakourmas has no criminal record and, according to a statement by the police authorities on the British bases there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he is involved with drugs it is clear that his kidnapping was an act of terrorism and his imprisonment by the illegal Turkish Cypriot authorities amounts to hostage taking.

What action will the Commission take with a view to securing the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Tsiakourmas? What pressure will it bring to bear on Turkey which is solely responsible for actions by the illegal occupying authorities in Cyprus performed entirely on its orders?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0045/01 by Mr Zacharakis(1).

(1) See p. 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: BSE: blood donations

In response to the BSE crisis, the governments of the 15 Member States have adopted a series of supplementary measures of their own to be applied in addition to the measures approved at Community level by the Council of Ministers. One measure adopted by the French Government merits particular attention, in that it places a ban on blood donations from people resident in the United Kingdom during the BSE crisis there.

In view of this situation, does the Commission believe that any technical or scientific grounds exist for banning blood donated by people resident in the United Kingdom during the BSE crisis there?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2001)

The Scientific Steering Committee has recently advised the Commission(1) that there is no conclusive scientific evidence for the transmission of variant Cruntzfeld-Jacob disease (vCJD) by blood. However, the Commission is well aware that a theoretical potential for such transmission does exist, and the relevant Scientific Committees continuously monitor scientific evidence on the subject as it arises.

Based on the Committee's findings, the Commission will propose preventive measures as necessary, taking into account also that the Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (SCMPMD)(2) recommends a careful consideration of whether the exclusion of donors who stayed for a defined period of time in areas with increased risk of exposure to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent would provide an increase in safety balanced against its negative impact on supply and donor population.

According to the SCMPMD, the adverse effects of any exclusion criterion on the donor population is not only the possibility of a shortage in supply. Excluded donors have to be replaced by new donors, most probably by first time donors. This replacement creates an additional risk as the prevalence of blood borne infectious diseases in first time donors is significantly higher than in repetitive donors. Any new exclusion measure, therefore, has to be balanced against the calculable risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmissions in donations from first time donors.

(1) Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of 26/27 October 2000 on the Houston et al paper in the Lancet of 16 September 2000 on the transmission of BSE by blood transfusion in sheep.

(2) Update of the Opinion given by the Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices on The Risk Quantification For CJD Transmission Via Substances of Human Origin of 16 February 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/01

by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 on Sudan

Why does the European Union in its Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 refer to renewed military activity by the SPLA but not to the massive offensives by the Sudanese government in the Nuba mountains and on the Southern Blue Nile in May and June 2001? Why does the European Union speak of a resumption of air raids, when reports by NGOs and local witnesses show that the air raids in fact never stopped? Should the European Union not consider appointing a special envoy for Sudan in Nairobi, whose mandate would be to make regular visits to the area in Question and gather objective, accurate information from both the government and the rebel sides?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

This Question should be addressed to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council

(23 January 2001)

Subject: Incidence of leukaemia and tumours in the European Union

There have recently been tragic cases of leukaemia and cancer among soldiers who took part in the peace-keeping operations in the Balkans (including soldiers from Italy, France, Belgium, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and Hungary) and there is a rising incidence of serious diseases such as leukaemia and various types of tumour and melanoma throughout the Community. The population of Europe is concerned and afraid that there may be links between the spread of such diseases and the use of depleted uranium during the conflict. In view of this, does the Council intend to ascertain the risk to human health and the environment posed by the use of depleted uranium munitions? Is the Council willing to release the figures in its possession concerning the current number of cases of cancer and leukaemia in Europe?

Does it intend to set up a committee of inquiry capable of:

(a) swiftly obtaining scientifically reliable data to throw light on the possible link between the munitions used and the cases of fatal diseases;

(b) studying the incidence of serious diseases in the Union during the last three years;

(c) assessing the damage caused to the environment;

(d) identifying regions whose food products must not be used;

(e) ascertaining the impact on animal farming?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0061/01 and E-0064/01

(14 May 2001)

During their discussions on the occasion of 22 January 2001 General Affairs Council, Ministers acknowledged the great concern of the public opinion and expressed their commitment to seek full clarity on the issue of depleted uranium.

There was general agreement that in the first instance it was for NATO, as the institution organising crisis management in the Balkans, to assemble the information from participants on the use of depleted uranium, on the locations of troops and on medical data. Ministers also called for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating this matter.

As far as the Council is concerned, no scientific report has been presented that establishes a link between these illnesses and the use of depleted uranium in munitions.

However, the Council noted that several bodies (UNEP, WHO, NATO, the committee set up by the Commission) are currently examining this issue and the first reports are expected to be published within the next few weeks. Once these reports are available, the Council has agreed to re-examine this issue in order to assess whether any specific initiative or measures at EU level are warranted.