ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3995/97 by Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Double taxation

Can the Commission indicate what takes precedence pursuant to European Directives: goods or services supplied exempt from turnover tax or goods or services supplied at VAT zero-rating because an intra-Community transaction is involved? Why?

Does the Commission acknowledge that tax accumulates if a firm in one Member State exports goods or services, exempt from turnover tax, to another Member State where such goods or services are not exempt from turnover tax? Can the Commission indicate whether this is based on a European decision - and, if so, which one - or whether these are simply powers exercised by national authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1998)

The Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )) rules out in principle any double taxation of transactions exempted within the country on the basis of Article 13 of that Directive. Uniform application of Article 13 prevents any such double taxation while Article 28c(B)(a) exempts 'the intra-Community acquisition of goods the supply of which by taxable persons would in all circumstances be exempt within the territory of the country'.

However, continued application by Member States of the transitional provisions based on Article 28(3) may lead to the accumulation of tax owing to the option given to Member States to continue to tax transactions which are normally exempt or to exempt transactions which are normally taxed. In exceptional cases, this lack of harmonisation may lead to a Member State taxing transactions on which the seller has been unable to deduct input tax in his own Member State.

The Commission has proposed ((OJ C 205, 13.8.1992. )) on a number of occasions that these temporary derogations be abolished. Except for the adoption of the Eighteenth Directive (89/465/EEC) of 18 July 1989 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Abolition of certain derogations provided for in Article 28(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) ((OJ L 226, 3.8.1989. )), which abolished a number of those derogations, the Council has failed to reach unanimous agreement on their total abolition.

It was for that reason that the Commission clearly indicated in its work programme for the introduction of a common system of VAT ((COM(96) 328 final. )) that it intended to re-examine all the options and derogations authorised under the current arrangements with a view to ensuring that the tax is applied uniformly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4023/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Psychiatric care in Greece

The guarantee of a high level of health care is one of the aims of the European Union which was strengthened by the Amsterdam Treaty. In Greece, certain shortcomings are becoming apparent in the psychiatric care system, including the discouragement of the private treatment of patients. To be exact, while the cost of treatment in private sector institutions is set at Drs 14 000, private clinics may not charge more than Drs 7 000 per day, which is leading to the collapse of private clinics. This is in spite of the fact that 50% of psychiatric patients are treated in clinics which are under threat of closure, a threat which has already been carried out in some cases. Will the Commission say what measures it can and will take to reform the mental health sector in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (25 February 1998)

The question of health care, including mental health care, remains the responsibility of the Member States. This will not change when the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified.

The Honourable Member should therefore address his question to the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Animals and cosmetic testing

Would the Commission consider giving the Eco-label a cruelty free dimension?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The Community eco-label award scheme, established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 on a Community eco-label award scheme ((OJ L 99, 11.4.1992. )) does not provide for the establishment of criteria specifically aimed at animal welfare. However, an eco-label may not be awarded to products which do not comply with Community legislation applicable to animal testing such as Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )).

So far the problem has been purely hypothetical, given that eco-labelling criteria have not been established for product groups, such as cosmetics.

In the Commission proposal ((COM(96) 603 final. )) to revise Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 there are no specific animal testing protection requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/97 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Satellite Jamming and the EC Trade Barrier Regulation

From 1 to 23 July 1997, the transmissions of MED-TV on the Eutelsat satellite provider were continuously jammed. The station broadcasts in Kurdish from London under licence from the UK Independent Television Commission.

Can the Commission confirm that the jamming of MED-TV violated the European Community's Trade Barrier Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3449/97 by Mr De Vries ((See page 60. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3388/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (23 October 1997)

Subject: Growth promotors

Can the Commission confirm the suspicion that the use of the growth promotor Tylosin in pigfeed can cause pathogenic bacteria in humans to become resistant to the drug Erythromycin?

If so, will it take steps to impose a ban on Tylosin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1997)

Tylosin is an antibiotic growth promoter authorised by Directive 78/974/EEC ((OJ L 330, 25.11.1978. )) for use in feed for piglets and pigs in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC ((OJ L 270, 14.12.1970. )). One of the preconditions for authorisation under this Directive is the absence of unfavourable effects on human health. Moreover, an additive may be authorised only in as far as, for serious reasons concerning human health, the use of such a substance is not restricted to medical purposes. In order to determine whether these authorisation criteria are satisfied, the file provided by the firm must, in particular, contain studies on cross-resistance to therapeutic antibiotics and studies to determine whether the additive can select resistance factors and whether such factors are transferable.

It should be noted that tylosin is also administered as a medicine to animals.

To date, the Commission has no information proving a causal relationship between the use of tylosin in pig feed and the appearance of resistance to erythromycin in pathogenic bacteria in humans. However, if the Honourable Member is in possession of new scientific data, the Commission would study it with great care and take any legislative measures required.

However, the Honourable Member should know that the Commission is currently examining scientific justification recently submitted by Finland under the Treaty of Accession. Finland is requesting an amendment of Community legislation to ban the use of tylosin and spiramycin as additives, in order to preserve their effectiveness as substances authorised as veterinary medicinal products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations for Estonia

The European Union aids the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through its PHARE programme. A great deal of aid has presumably been provided from this programme for the development of the countries which have applied for membership of the EU. Can the Commission provide details of the utilization of appropriations granted under PHARE in 1997 for Estonia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3692/97 and E-3699/97 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1998)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member concerning the 1997 and 1998 Phare programmes in Estonia as follows:

1. 1997 programme

a) National programme

The 1997 Phare-funded country operational programme of a total amount of 29.6 MECU includes the following components:

>TABLE>

In addition, 1.2 MECU has been committed for Tempus.

The financing memorandum for the 1997 programme was signed in February 1997 and implementation is progressing. However, impact assessments can be made only when the individual programme components have been fully implemented.

b) Cross-border cooperation programme

3.1 MECU has been committed for cross-border cooperation.

2. 1998 programme

The programming of the 1998 Phare programme will take place only in the second quarter of 1998. However, the programme will focus on the most priorities identified in the Commission's opinion on Estonia with an estimated 30% being devoted to institution building and 70% for support of specific investments in sectors such as environment, transport and agriculture.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3994/97 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Introduction of rules on the catching and breeding of the common eel

When is a proposal to be submitted for rules on the catching and breeding of the common eel (Anguilla anguilla)?

Can the Commission also indicate the content of any repopulation programmes involved?

Are there any plans to introduce an export ban to stabilize the European market?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3994/97 and E-4001/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission is aware of the valuable and growing contribution of the eel cultivation sector to European aquaculture and of the importance of the eel fisheries in Member States. The dependence on supplies of juvenile eels caught in the wild will remain for so long as it continues to be impossible to complete the life cycle of this species in captivity. Juvenile eel is also used for stocking purposes and is important for the commercial fisheries.

Glass eels are caught as they migrate up rivers on the final leg of their migration from the Sargasso Sea. The competence of managing glass eel fisheries has up to now lain primarily with Member States and a range of national control measures exist, depending on the traditional patterns of exploitation and use. Five Member States ban commercial fishing for glass eels and elvers, while a regional ban exists in a sixth Member State. In the southern Member States where there is a tradition of consuming smaller eels, glass eel fishing is permitted but controls are applied to fishing gear, open season or fishing and dealing licences.

A recently completed report on management of the European eel (concerted action of the agricultural and agro-industry research programme (AIR) A94-1939) has shown that returns of glass eels have fallen. This is a matter of concern and the Commission in September 1997 requested the International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) to provide advice on possible management actions to ensure a sustainable development of the eel fisheries within the Community. This advice should be provided in 1998 and any possible proposal on management measures, including restocking, will be deferred until then.

The Commission will, on the basis of the analyses mentioned above and any other assessment data necessary, take any action it deems appropriate to restrict exports of elvers from the Community. World Trade Organisation rules would have to be respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4150/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (7 January 1998)

Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain

In view of the conditions laid down for approval of the funding of the Alqueva project, but taking into account the fact that the Commission has already financed a number of hydraulic projects, of various types and dimensions, in Spain, especially in rivers which flow into neighbouring countries, can the Commission state:

1. the nature, location and dimensions of the projects concerned, and, in particular, their water storage capacity;

2. whether, and under what conditions, deviation or 'transfusion' of watercourses was involved;

3. what were the environmental, agricultural or other consequences;

4. what were the conditions laid down by the Commission for approval of the projects;

5. what was the level of funding?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

To provide the information that the Honourable Member seeks on a large number of projects and installations would require a very extensive study that the Commission does not have the resources either to carry out itself or finance.

The Honourable Member will however find an answer to most of his questions in two documents that the Commission is sending direct to him and to Parliament's Secretariat. These constitute the Montgomery Watson report ('Water availablity under extreme conditions in the Iberian Peninsula with special reference to the Guadiana international -Spain and Portugal - river basin') published in the second half of 1996. This illustrates the problems towards resolution of which part-financing from the Community has been directed from the Structural Funds and through Cohesion Fund projects since 1993 on a national and annual basis, since the basin approach is still too recent for systematic project presentation in this way.

If after consulting these documents the Honourable Member wishes to obtain information on a specific project the Commission will undertake the research needed to obtain it.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that many installations in Spain falling within the scope of the draft national water plan have been realised without any Community money. Nor is the Commission able, though it can of course identify projects within the Cohesion Fund ambit, to identify systematically within the programmes of the Autonomous Communities projects part-financed by the Structural Funds. It is therefore directly from the Autonomous Communities themselves as managers of these programmes that the Honourable Member will be able to find an exhaustive reply to his question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3814/97 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Food labelling - peanut derivatives

People suffering from an allergy to peanuts can unknowingly eat foods containing peanut derivatives. This is due to unclear labelling of these foods, which in some cases can lead to a life-threatening situation.

Are there European level rules for the labelling of foods containing peanut derivatives?

If not, does the Commission have any plans for proposals to introduce clear labelling of these foods?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The Commission is actively considering the need for amendments to the Community rules on food labelling in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed of the presence of potential allergens in foods, including peanuts and peanut oil.

At the request of the Commission, in September 1995, the scientific committee for food has produced a report on food allergy and food intolerance. The conclusions of this report are currently being discussed with the Member States. In addition, discussions on the labelling of allergens are taking place at international level within the framework of the Codex Alimentarius.

This work will be supplemented, within the framework of scientific cooperation between Member States and Commission, by a collection of the epidemiologic data available (geographical variations and frequency and gravity of over-sensitiveness). This is indeed necessary to determine criteria for the establishment of a list of ingredients recognised as a source of allergy or of intolerance which, if they are used in a foodstuff, should mandatorily be introduced in the list of ingredients which appear on labelling.

On the basis of the results of this epidemiologic examination which should be known in June 1998, the Commission could then be in a position to propose an amendment of Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3867/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Olive oil exports

Olive oil exports are now subject to the limits imposed by the GATT agreements on refunds, which are to be reduced by 20% in volume and 36% in value, on a cumulative basis, by the year 2000.

What measures does the Commission envisage to offset these losses and support the opening-up of new export markets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

The GATT agreements provide for an export quota with Community refunds of 145 000 tonnes, to be reduced to 115 000 tonnes in 2000. Under the rules, the Commission is responsible for managing the quota and ensuring that the Uruguay Round agreement is properly implemented.

The Commission does not agree with the Honourable Member that these restrictions are causing a loss of market share. Indeed, only exports with refunds are restricted. The most recent data show that despite this quota, the level of refund necessary to export has fallen from ECU 40/100 kg at the beginning of the 1996/97 marketing year to ECU 18.50/100 kg at the end of the current marketing year. This shows that markets in non-member countries will pay a price which does not require large refunds.

The Community helps to open up new markets through the promotion policy of the International Olive Oil Council, which is mainly financed by the Community's promotion fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: The Pintasilgo report

In his reply to my Written Question E-2402/97 ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 70. )) Commissioner Flynn has failed to answer question 2 on whether the proposals set out in the Pintasilgo report have had any substantial impact on EU social policy. Will he now rectify this omission?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 January 1998)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it will continue in 1998 its reflections on the future of fundamental rights at Community level. This work will certainly take into account the recommendations drafted by the committee chaired by Mrs Pintasilgo.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3488/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 November 1997)

Subject: Essex Returners Unit - Failure of Bid to DG V

Can the Commission confirm that it has received a formal complaint from the Essex Returners Unit regarding the alleged mishandling by the Commission of its project bid 97/D4/UK/171-2, including the allocation of an incorrect project reference and a number of other errors?

Can the Commission confirm that it will provide a full and detailed report on why the bid failed and confirm the date when this will be provided?

Given the apparent extenuating circumstances, can the Commission identify alternative budget lines which may be available to contribute towards the project's costs?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

The Commission did receive a complaint from the Essex Returners Unit about the rejection of its application for a grant within the framework of the European year against racism. A detailed explanation of the reasons for the Commission's decision was sent to the Essex Returners Unit on 31 July 1997.

The Commission rejects the suggestion that this application was in any way mishandled. It was rejected for lack of compliance with a number of formal and qualitative criteria, which were clearly stipulated in all documents relating to applications for funding within the framework of the European year. The applicant has been added to the Commission's mailing list and will be informed of any other funding opportunities for actions to combat racism.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3740/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (17 November 1997)

Subject: Assessment of the environmental impact of construction of the Castel Sant'Angelo subway in Rome

I have already submitted a number of questions on the construction of the Castel Sant'Angelo subway.

Press articles published recently state that, when asked about the requirement that the subway project be subjected to an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.)), the Rome councillor responsible for public works maintained that such an assessment was unnecessary under Italian law (in particular circular GAB/96/15208 issued by the Environment Ministry on 7 October 1996).

The Commission has, however, indicated in other cases that the presidential decree of 12 April 1996 should be referred to in connection with projects covered by Annex II of the above Directive, since it appears to constitute an accurate transposition of Community law.

The above presidential decree stipulates that, for projects such as the subway, it is the job of the regional authorities to establish whether an environmental impact assessment is required and to lay down the relevant procedures. Despite this, Latium Regional Council has never looked into the issue of the subway and, furthermore, has yet to pass a regional law governing such matters.

The Rome councillor's reference to the ministerial circular would therefore appear to be unfounded. Furthermore, Rome Council's unilateral decision not to subject the project to an environmental impact assessment, despite the fact that it affects an area of great archaeological and architectural interest, would appear illegal.

Given the above and in view of the fact that Rome City Council has already submitted the final project, which should be adopted on 4 November 1997, would the Commission not agree that:

1. Rome City Council's behaviour constitutes a flagrant breach of Community law, which inter alia could jeopardize EIB funding for the project?

2. it should take further action vis-à-vis Rome City Council, not least in view of the lack of any response from the Italian authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

With regard to compliance with Community law on whether a project covered by Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) is or is not required to undergo an environmental impact assessment, which probably covers the Castel Sant'Angelo subway, referred to in this question, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given to his Written Question E-3410/97 ((OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 104. )).

As regards the financing of the project by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given to his Written Question E-3409/97 ((See page 54. )).