ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: An overall view of energy policy and actions

In connection with the Commission Communication "An overall view of energy policy and actions" (COM(97) 167 final) will the Commission draw up a common energy policy which is consistent and coordinated at EU level and is based on cooperation between national energy policies, without prejudice to individual countries' independence in the choice of primary energy sources?

It should be stressed that until the European Union has a title on energy in the Treaty, there is a risk that the common energy policy may be structured on the basis of many other Community policies.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1998)

In its Communication of April 1997 "An overall view of energy policy and actions",(1) the Commission undertook to give a complete picture of all Community actions in the field of energy, including actions developed in cooperation with Member States as well as actions taken at Community level, either in the framework of the energy policy or under other Community policies. The Communication is the first stage of an integrated approach permitting a better response to strategic challenges facing the Community in the energy sector. It emphasises that the effectiveness of Community action would be increased were a specific legal basis taking account of all the energy policy priorities to be included in the EC Treaty.

As no clause of this kind was adopted at the 1997 Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission has proposed an integrated approach based on the implementation of a multiannual framework programme in the energy sector.(2) This would bring together different Community actions in the field of energy and guarantee their efficacy and coherence with regard to three priority objectives: security of supply, competitiveness and environmental protection. The coherence of different aspects of energy policy implemented in the framework of different Community policies, such as research, external relations or structural policies, will also be facilitated by the creation of a network, within the Commission, linking the Directorates General concerned.

(1) COM(97) 167 final.

(2) COM(97) 550 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1021/98

by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Recognition of qualifications

The Greek authorities are refusing to recognize or register qualifications which a British citizen attained from the International Therapy Examination Council in Britain. Although these diplomas and certificates qualify her to set up her own business to work as a beautician in Britain, the Greek authorities are refusing to recognize them.

Could the European Commission investigate whether this is against the freedom to provide services, one of the basic principles of the Single Market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

In the case of beauticians, reference must be made to Council Directive 75/368/EEC of 16 June 1975 on measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of various activities and transitional measures in respect of those activities.(1) This Directive stipulates that, where the taking-up or pursuit in a Member State of any activity covered by the Directive is subject to possession of general, commercial or professional knowledge and ability, that Member State must accept as sufficient evidence of such knowledge and ability the fact that the activity in question has been pursued in another Member State for at least three years.

Where diplomas are concerned, obligations to recognise them derive directly from the EC Treaty. The Court of Justice, in its judgments in the Heylens (222/86 of 15 October 1987) and Vlassopoulou (C-340/89 of 7 May 1991) cases, stressed that the host Member State cannot, without disregarding an obligation which has its source in the EC Treaty itself and in particular in Articles 5, 48, 52 and 59, refuse to take account of knowledge and qualifications acquired by a Community national in another Member State. The host Member State therefore has to establish a procedure for comparing the qualifications it requires with those acquired by the person concerned in another Member State. This procedure must also be capable of ensuring that, where the qualifications acquired in another Member State are equivalent, the host Member State recognises the foreign diploma attesting these qualifications as it stands. If, at the end of such an assessment, qualifications considered necessary to the pursuit of the profession in question are found to be lacking, the host Member State is entitled to require the person concerned to prove that he has acquired the knowledge and qualifications which are lacking, but it must accept the part of the training which is equivalent. It must also, once the gaps have been objectively established, offer the migrant the possibility of filling them by means of additional training.

The Commission is willing to examine the details of any individual cases which the Honourable Member might provide.

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Renewal of motor vehicles in the Community

Statistics show that the number of private cars registered more than ten years ago is still alarmingly high, standing at more than 25 % of the national totals.

Leaving aside the legitimate interests of the Community car industry to focus on other considerations such as road safety and the quality of life, there is no doubt that incentives should be provided to reduce the above percentage, which reaches 50.62 % in Greece, 44.15 % in Finland and 36.29 % in Spain.

Does the Commission take the view that it should promote new measures geared to providing incentives for the purchase of newly registered cars through a specific programme, which would lead to a reduction in the proportion of used cars more than ten years old and an increase in road safety and, more generally, in the quality of life of Community citizens?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission does not intend to propose any specific measures to reduce systematically the number of old vehicles in circulation. However, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to Directive 96/96/EC on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers(1) which provides for regular inspection of motor vehicles as regards a minimum set of safety and environmental requirements concerning in particular brakes, tyres, lights and emissions.

This Directive requires the roadworthiness of all vehicles, including old cars, to be checked periodically and, thereby, significantly promotes road safety.

(1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1188/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: North-West Regional Rail Study

Has the Commission received a copy of this study? Is it aware that this study was drawn up without consultation of the relevant local authorities? Is it aware that many of the latter consider that they study is flawed in its technical assessments as well as in its cost and price assessments? Does the Commission accept that it would be a mistake to base any policy decisions on this study?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behaf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

The Commission can confirm that it has received a copy of the study report from the North West Partnership.

The Commission has not yet been informed of the views of local authorities although it has noted that the steering committee for the study was made up of representatives of many local authorities and regional bodies.

Although the study mainly concerns matters of national and local competence, the Commission will give consideration to it in order to take account of any implications it might have at Community level. In addition, if the Honourable Member or the local authorities to which he refers wish to submit comments to the Commission, these will also be considered with interest.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1333/98

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Commission negotiation on the Helms-Burton Act

In reply to an earlier written question on this subject (H-108/98)(1), Commissioner Brittan fails to make it clear whether or not the Commission has decided to let the WTO Panel lapse with regard to the violation of international law resulting from the Helms-Burton Act.

As European firms are suffering considerable hardship because of the Helms-Burton Act, which is fully enforced, de facto if not de jure, does Commissioner Brittan not consider that these delaying tactics, which in the final analysis endorse the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation, should be brought to an end by immediately referring the matter to the WTO Panel?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 1998)

The Community and the United States are currently engaged in intensive discussion and negotiations in pursuit of a negotiated solution to the difficulties on the Helms-Burton and Iran and Libya sanctions Act (ILSA) legislation as envisaged in the 11 April 1997 understanding.

Under the terms of this understanding, the Community agreed to suspend its World trade organisation (WTO) case against the Helms-Burton Act for 12 months against a United States commitment to continue the partial suspension of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act and to work towards a Title IV waiver and waivers under ILSA(2).

If, however, a solution under the terms of the understanding is not found, the right to resume the WTO case remains. The Council decided in April 1997 that if action is taken against Community nationals, or waivers as described in the understanding are not granted, "the Commission will request the WTO to restart, or to re-establish the panel, which then will follow its normal course". This possibility also covers the situation after the lapse of the suspension of the WTO panel.

(1) European Parliament Debates (February 1998).

(2) Iran Libya Sanctions Act.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Meat inspection costs for farmers

Can the Commission clarify whether there are any plans to standardize the system of meat inspection costs, with governments in all Member States bearing the costs, or will it continue to vary from country to country?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 1998)

The Community has rules governing the funding of costs incurred by inspections and controls on meat. In this connection, the main reference is Council Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and controls under Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1), and in particular Annex A, Chapter 1 on the fees applicable to meat covered by Directives 64/433/EEC, 71/118/EEC, 91/495/EEC and 92/45/EEC.

Generally speaking, the system in place provides for flat-rate fees with the possibility of increasing or reducing this amount to take account of costs.

(1) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0919/98

by Carlo Secchi (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1998)

Subject: Complaint 97/4230/SG(97)A/4867 and the letter of formal notice subsequently sent to the Italian State because of its infringement of the Directive on public contracts in connection with the company Infomont of Borgotaro

The local press has reported that the Italian State has been sent a letter of formal notice because of the case of the company Infomont of Borgotaro (PR), which was apparently awarded a service contract without the procedure laid down in Directive 92/50(1) being observed.

Can the Commission say:

- what the main facts justifying the formal notice procedure were, in the light of the investigations carried out;

- how the Italian State responded to the Commission's requests;

- what steps it intends to take to ensure that the relevant Community directives apply in this particular case?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1998)

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty, called on the Italian State to give its observations on certain aspects of the award by the Valli del Taro e del Ceno of the contract for drawing up and implementing a project concerning the local tax system. The aspects raised by the Commission are covered by the confidentiality of the case under examination.

Since the Commission has not yet received the observations of the Italian authorities, it is unable at the moment to announce any measures it may have to take.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1066/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Directive 96/29 - Euratom

In the light of concerns from constituents, what advice was obtained as to the increased dangers posed from a relaxation of the limits on nuclear contaminated waste? Which agency was responsible for giving such advice?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 1998)

New basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation have been laid down in Directive 96/29/Euratom(1) and are due to be implemented in national legislation by May 2000. With effect from this date earlier directives, in particular Council Directive 80/836/Euratom of 15 July 1980 amending the directives laying down the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation(2) and Council Directive 84/467/Euratom of 3 September 1984 amending Directive 80/836/Euratom as regards the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation(3) shall be repealed. The new Directive considerably strengthens the requirements for reporting and prior authorization of practices, in particular with regard to the disposal, recycling or reuse of materials containing radioactive substances arising from any practice subject to these requirements.

The draft proposal for a revision of the basic safety standards put forward by the Commission(4) was essentially based on the opinion given by the group of experts appointed by the Commission's scientific and technical committee from among scientific experts under the terms of Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty.

Subsequent proposals took account of the opinions given by the Economic and social committee on 25 February 1993 and by the Parliament on 20 April 1994, the final text being adopted by Council on 13 May 1996(5).

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.

(3) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.

(4) SEC(92) 1322 final.

(5) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0828/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Refund of VAT owed to cotton growers

In Greece the refund of VAT to cotton growers takes the form of a fixed coefficient of 3.5 %. The coresponsibility levy is not deducted from the sum on which the VAT refund is calculated.

For the 1990-1995 period the Greek Government made a mistake in refunding cotton growers, for which it alone is responsible, as it has admitted: it refunded the VAT for the years in question without taking into account the coresponsibility levy. This led to an immediate drop in farmers' incomes.

The Greek Government now refuses to refund the VAT on the coresponsibility levy for the 1990-1995 period on the grounds that it has already completed the notification to the Community of the VAT refund to farmers in respect of the years in question, and there is no precedent for reexamining the subject, since no relevant EU procedure exists.

Given that Greek farmers have suffered losses for which the Greek Government is solely responsible, does the Commission intend, in cooperation with the Greek Government, to examine the issue of refunding the amount of VAT owed to cotton growers in respect of the coresponsibility levy for the 1990-1995 period?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1998)

According to Article 25 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1) Member States may apply a special scheme for small farmers. Article 25 provides for a flat-rate compensation to enable flat-rate farmers to offset at a fixed rate the value added tax charge on inputs. The compensation rate is fixed by Member States on the basis of macro-economic statistics. The rate fixed may not be used to give farmers a higher refund than the amount of the value added tax charges on inputs. However, Member States may reduce such compensation rates to a nil rate. The compensation to Greek flat-rate farmers is paid through a refund by the state. The small farmers may according to Article 25 opt for the normal VAT scheme.

Against this background there is no justification for the Commission to examine with Greece the issue of refund for the period in question.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1422/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

Council Regulation (EC) 1103/97(1), and the draft Regulation on the introduction of the euro annexed to the Council Resolution of 7 July 1997(2), appear to favour limiting the scope for banks to charge commission on the conversion of payments made into accounts or on the conversion of accounts at the end of the transitional period.

Does the Commission envisage adopting legal provisions of some kind in order apply these principles?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 1998)

The two Council regulations establishing the legal framework for the use of the euro do not explicitly address the issue of banking charges for conversion to the euro. The Commission stated in its last communication on practical aspects of the introduction of the euro(3) that in its opinion, charging for conversions which are legally required on the basis of the euro regulations would be unlawful. This includes conversion of incoming payments from the national currency unit to the euro unit and vice versa during the transitional period and conversion of accounts from the national currency unit to the euro unit at the end of the transitional period. This legal interpretation confirms the view expressed by the Honourable Member.

Having studied the issue of banking charges for conversion to the euro with the help of an expert group, the Commission at this stage has not deemed it necessary to impose the principle by way of legislation. It appears from the investigation carried out by the expert group that a large majority of banks do not intend to charge for compulsory conversions even in the absence of legislative measures. On 23 April 1998 the Commission adopted a recommendation(4) which set out a standard of good practice on banking charges for conversion to the euro. The standard covers both those practices that the Commission considers to be legally required on the basis of the euro regulations and other recommended practices that the Commission considers that banks should apply in order to facilitate the smooth introduction of the euro. Regarding payments and conversion of accounts the Commission recommends the conversion without charges of incoming and outgoing payments during the transitional period, and of accounts into euro unit during the transitional period and at the end of it.

(1) OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997, p. 7.

(3) COM(98) 61 final.

(4) COM(98) 961 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Euro 1999

The Commission communication on the practical aspects of the introduction of the euro (COM(98) 61 final) states that some legal principles in the Regulations establishing the legal provisions governing the euro would appear to restrict banks' ability to charge for the conversion of incoming payments or for the conversion of accounts during the transitional period.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure respect for these general principles?

Joint answer to Written QuestionsE-1438/98, E-1442/98 and E-1443/98 given by Mrde Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

In its reply to the Honourable Member's written question P-1422/98(1), the Commission has already confirmed its position on the implications of existing legal provisions on banking charges for conversion to the euro, which confirm the views of the Honourable Member.

The Commission adopted on 23 April 1998 a recommendation(2) addressed to the banking sector and the Member States which sets out a standard of good practices on banking charges for conversion.

Among the possible ways to ensure a transparent implementation of the standards of good practice the Commission has indicated in its recommendations the possibility for the banks to agree on codes of conduct, or the use of a label within a national scheme, or the inclusion of provisions on banking charges in the national transition plans. The central banks and the public authorities could favour and encourage these practices with their national banking association in order to ensure the respect of the general principles stated and recommended by the Commission.

Public authorities could include the recommended practices in the national transition plans or reach agreements with the banking and financial sector within the national structures for dialogue.

The Commission intends to monitor the application of the recommended standards and for that purpose in a separate Commission recommendation on "Dialogue, Monitoring and Information provision to facilitate the transition to the euro"2 it expressly requested the banking associations to report to the Commission, by 1 November 1998, on the implementation of such standards by the banking sector.

(1) See page 131.

(2) COM(98) 961 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1384/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Training in specialized medicine and free movement of doctors

In a bill published in February 1998 (AC 4602), the Italian Government further penalizes specialized medical training by proposing contracts for self-employment which are in no way in line with the content and specific requirements laid down for specialized training courses, which, according to Directive 93/16/EEC(1), should "comprise theoretical and practical instruction".

Under the kind of employment relationship proposed by this bill, employers would not be required under Italian law to guarantee training or provide the necessary facilities for it.

Does the Commission not consider that:

1. this anomaly and the inadequacy of the Italian training system are depriving Italian and European citizens of proper quality standards?

2. using specialist doctors to cover for structural staff shortages in the Italian health system could result in an illegal form of protectionism, restricting access to the labour market in Italy for European doctors?

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written QuestionsE-1383/98 and E-1384/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the matters raised by her have been referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling(1).

Accordingly, it cannot comment until the Court's ruling has been delivered.

(1) Request for a preliminary ruling C-137/91 (Carbonari and Others v Italy).