ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1483/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Reduction of ecopoint quotas

In the transit agreement between Austria and the EU the number of transit authorisations is governed by ecopoints. Besides an automatic annual reduction of these ecopoints, the arrangement also provides for a quota reduction this year because low-emission vehicles enabled more journeys to be undertaken last year. After the economic trend in 1999 led to heavier demand for transport through Austria than provided for in the transit agreement, an additional and thus disproportionate reduction of the ecopoint quota is likely this year.

Experience shows that the number of ecopoints issued is not enough to ensure that the whole of the European business sector is supplied. This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that this year a disproportionately high reduction is having an impact.

Is the Commission aware that a shortage of transit authorisations, i.e. ecopoints, may jeopardise the current economic upturn in Europe?

What does the Commission intend to do in this context to ensure that the European business sector is supplied?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission is obliged under Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9 of the Act of Accession of Austria(1) to make a proposal to reduce the total number of ecopoints available if the number of transit journeys by lorries through Austria exceeds the 1991 level by more than 8 %. In 1999 the number of journeys exceeded the 1991 level by almost 15 %.

The methodology for calculating the required reduction in ecopoints is clearly laid out in Protocol No 9 and is equivalent to some 300 000 transit journeys. In order to minimise its effect as much as possible, the Commission is seeking to spread the reduction over the remaining 3½ year life of the ecopoint system. By spreading

the reduction in this way the reduced possibilities for lorries to transit the Alps via Austria can be met by the railways. In this regard the Commission notes that Germany, Austria and Italy are committed to working together to improve north-south running rail freight services through the rail freight freeways.

In addition, the consequences of a reduced number of ecopoints will, from 2001, be offset in part by the increased possibilities for lorries to transit the Alps via Switzerland as a result of the coming into force of the transport agreement with Switzerland.

The proposal for a Commission regulation was submitted to the management committee for road, rail and combined transport in Austria on 31 May 2000. A vote was taken but there was not the necessary majority in favour of the proposal for its adoption. Thus, in conformity with the rules of procedure laid down in Article 16 of Protocol No 9, the proposal has been referred to the Council for consideration.

(1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Revision of Article 296

In the light of paragraph 23 of the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 15 June 2000 (Lalumière report), does the Commission now intend to propose to the IGC that Article 296 should be revised in the Treaty of Nice and made more flexible so as to create the conditions for a single market in defence equipment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2000)

Article 296 (formerly Article 223) of the EC Treaty which authorises the Member States to exempt their defence industries from competition law is being increasingly perceived in many quarters as an obstacle to the development of a European defence industry. The national derogations which it allows may have been justified at a time when there was no prospect of a European defence industry but now seem ineffective in some cases.

The Court of Justice's interpretation of this Article is becoming increasingly restrictive as attested in particular by its judgment of 16 September 1999 (Case C414/97, Commission v. Spain). The Treaty normally applies to products covered by this Article and a Member State applying for a derogation must prove that it is justified.

Although the Commission shares the interpretation of the Court of Justice, it is aware of the issues and debate to which this Article gives rise. Consequently it is considering whether to present a proposal to amend the Article at a future Intergovernmental Conference. However it is also considering an alternative approach; this would be to propose a sort of code of conduct for the interpretation of and harmonised practices for Article 296 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1348/00

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

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Institutional reform

The report on the reform of the European Commission takes an important first step in addressing the problems of incompetence and corruption amongst a minority of

Commission staff and I congratulate the Commission on having the courage to face up to the fonctionnaires' powerful trade unions. But would it not be a good idea for those at the very top of the Commission structure (i.e. the Commissioners themselves) to set their staff a good example by accepting the same stringent performance targets as their employees and subjecting themselves to an annual evaluation?

Would the Commission please comment on my proposal that each Commissioner book an appointment with the Parliament once a year for a full and frank two-way analysis of their personal performance and the performance of their DGs?

Please would the Commission also state whether, in the interests of equity, Commissioners plan to accept adherence to the same disciplinary procedures as their staff, whereby, in the most extreme cases, underperforming Commissioners can be reassigned, again, just like their staff?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

The legal basis for staff appraisal is Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, which recommends that staff should be the subject of a periodical report at least once every two years. This applies only to officials and other servants of the Communities, with the exception of Grades A1 and A2. For the latter grades, the White Paper on the administrative reform of the Commission published in March proposes the introduction of a separate appraisal system (COM(2000) 200, Chapter IV.2, page 11).

The Members of the Commission, unlike the staff covered by Article 43, bear a political responsibility which is set down in the Treaty and is outside the scope of the Staff Regulations.

All Commissioners willingly attend Parliamentary Committees on a regular basis and much more frequently than once a year in order to discuss and account for the purposes and results of their activities in the sector for which they are politically responsible.

As the Honourable Member will know, negotiations on a new inter-institutional agreement on mutual relations are currently taking place, and the political relationship between Parliament and the Commission will be integrated within an agreed framework in the future.

Article 160 (ex Article 130c) of the EC Treaty provides for the compulsory retirement of a Member of the Commission who no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his or her duties or has been guilty of serious misconduct. In addition, each member of the current Commission has given an undertaking to the President that he or she will resign their position if asked by the President to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1761/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Travel to the elections in Greece

Elections were held in Greece on 9 April 2000. Since Greek citizens living abroad may not vote by post, Olympic Airways offered air tickets at greatly reduced prices to enable as many Greeks as possible to vote.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above?

2. Can the Commission say whether the offer was valid for Greek citizens only or whether all Union citizens were able to purchase these reduced tickets?

3. Can the Commission indicate who paid the difference between the reduced and the ordinary fare and how much this amounted to?

4. On what routes was this offer available?

5. Does the Commission consider that this constituted a distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services(1), airlines are free to set their own fares. Due to the fact that Greek citizens living abroad have to return to Greece to vote, the Commission understands, from the information available, that this was a charter arrangement between the airline and the political parties.

In order to assess whether this practice may be contrary to Community law provisions, the Commission is in the process of examining the circumstances of this charter arrangement. It has thus written to both the Greek government and Olympic Airways to establish whether the arrangement, when taking into account other airlines flying to the same destinations in Greece, was appropriate.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1719/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE), Marcello Dell'Utri (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Pier Casini (PPE-DE) and Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: The euro crisis

The undeniable crisis affecting the euro has been, and is, a cause for great concern in all the countries are participating in the single currency, and in the EU in general.

Can the Commission as a matter of urgency provide the European Parliament and, more generally, European citizens, with an adequate explanation of the measures that have been, or are to be, taken to put an end to a situation which we all hope is transitory, but which nevertheless has been dragging on for many months?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Although a good part of the depreciation in the euro since its introduction may be explained by a relatively high starting value (following a substantial appreciation in the course of 1998) and by relative cyclical developments in the euro area and the other major world regions, most observers agree that the present level of the euro, around 0.90 US dollar per euro, does not reflect present economic conditions and it is well below most estimates of a long-run equilibrium value.

Similarly large swings in the exchange rates of the world's major currencies are not at all unusual in the current free-floating system. In normal circumstances, exchange rate movements fulfil a stabilising role. Sometimes, however, exchange rates temporarily depart from economic fundamentals. As economic growth rates in the United States and the euro area converge, one might expect the exchange rate increasingly to reflect these fundamentals, so that the euro would move up towards its equilibrium rate without the need for a policy response.

The European central bank (ECB) and the Euro-11 Group have clearly stated that the euro has a strong potential for appreciation. While such verbal support has had only limited effect so far, it should be stressed that the ECB, in full accordance with its mandate as set in the EC Treaty, is concerned by the level of the exchange rate only to the extent that it has an impact on inflation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Threats to cetaceans from French and Spanish trawlers

Is the Commission aware of the serious threat to cetaceans caused in particular by French and Spanish trawlers? Given that the Commission has made sustainable fisheries one of the key issues in the common fisheries policy, should it not endeavour to protect marine mammals on the same scale as fish caught for human consumption? Is the Commission proposing the early launch of an initiative to this effect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of reports of strandings of approximately 350 dolphins in the Bay of Biscay and of smaller numbers of dolphins on the coast of south west England earlier this year. The Commission is also aware that the media have indicated that these strandings were a result of the dolphins being caught by Spanish and French vessels using pelagic trawls.

In this context, it should be noted that Spanish national legislation prohibits the use by Spanish vessels of pelagic trawls.

The Commission considers that means must be found to provide appropriate levels of protection for cetaceans.

At the Council of 16 June 2000, the Commission expressed its deepest concern on this and similar issues. To follow up, the Commission will very soon contact Member States requesting them to inform it what actions they have taken or intend to take at national level. Furthermore, the Member of the Commission in charge of Fisheries indicated his intention to give priority to further research and to consider what might be done in the immediate future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2409/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Americans with Disabilities Act

Is the Commission aware that the United States, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, judges must take a person's disability into account when passing sentence? Does any Member State have similar legislation? Would the Commission be prepared to put forward a proposal to encourage all Member States to incorporate into their national legislation a measure similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any specific legal provisions in force in the United States that impose certain obligations on judges with respect to disabled persons. It also does not know of any similar measures in the Member States, and does not intend to put forward any such proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2441/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Possible infringement of Council directive 92/43/EEC on the preservation of natural habitats

Situated between Barreiro and Ribadeo in Galicia, the Catedrais coastal area was put forward by the Spanish Government for inclusion in the Natura 2000 European network, thus turning it into a natural area under general protection.

This logically implies taking a preventive attitude towards the setting up of any establishments which by their nature are not in tune with the environmental purpose of the beach and the surrounding environment.

It is a fact that the Xunta de Galiza's Environment Quality Service did not draw up the report required for issuing the licence to open a bar and restaurant requested in March 1999.

Is the Commission aware of this behaviour on the part of the Galician Government, and does it intend to carry out the requisite enquiries and take steps to punish this infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on the preservation of natural habitats?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the case the Honourable Member is referring to. Issuing a licence for the opening of a bar and restaurant on a site proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network is a matter for the national authorities.

On the basis of the summary information supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no reason to suspect that the project in question is likely to have a significant impact. Only if the opposite were the case could the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora be brought into play.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1088/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Trial of 13 Iranian Jews by the Iranian authorities

The Iranian authorities have announced that 13 Iranian Jews from the city of Shiraz will be brought to trial on 13 April this year. They are accused of spying for the Zionist regime and the United States and of arrogance on a worldwide scale.

Israel and the United States have categorically denied any links with the accused. Nevertheless, not least on the basis of similar cases in the past, it is extremely likely that the Teheran court will sentence them to death.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure respect for fundamental human rights and guarantee that the trial is conducted in a proper manner, in view of the fact that the conditions under which the accused are being detained and will be tried do not meet the minimum standards required to ensure that justice is done?

Can the Commission prevail upon the Teheran government to authorise the presence of observers from the Commission or the European Parliament to ascertain respect for and actual compliance with the right of defence and ensure that the trial is fair and just?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1088/00, E-1209/00 and E-1251/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission follows closely the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights have an important place and are always raised by the Union.

Concerning the 13 Iranian Jews and 8 Muslims detained in Shiraz on charges of espionage, a number of demarches have been made by the Union as well as by individual Member States in the last year. Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a fair and open trial and the Iranian authorities are undoubtedly aware of the strong international reaction that would follow a negative outcome of the trial. Three of the detained Jews were recently released on bail.

The Union has repeatedly addressed with the Iranian authorities the importance of ensuring a fair and open trial including the issue of legal representation of the detainees. It is regrettable that earlier promises of an open trial have not been met.

While the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, it is necessary to avoid creating an impression of foreign interference, which would not serve the best interest of the detainees. This being said, it is clear that the outcome of this trial, and the international assessment of how it has been conducted, will be a determining factor in the perspectives for any further improvement in relations with Iran.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1113/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Extension of the 1994 UK VAT Act

Would the European Commission have any objection to Section 33 of the 1994 UK VAT Act being extended to nationally-funded museums and galleries whose trustees are appointed by the UK Government?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Section 33 of the 1994 British VAT Act introduced a refund scheme, whereby input VAT, for which the recovery is not possible under the normal VAT procedure, is refunded to certain local authorities and government departments. This refund scheme is a financial operation between different public bodies which does not conflict with the European common VAT system and could be considered as a sort of subsidy granted to certain local authorities and government departments. The question of which of these bodies can be included in Section 33 of the 1994 British Act is a purely national matter to be determined by the British authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2326/00

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Compatibility of Polish draft law on competition and consumer protection with the acquis communautaire

The Polish Parliament will shortly be adopting the legislative text of a law on competition and consumer protection which will also include important provisions on industrial property. However, the draft law contains a provision which seems to be incompatible with international rules on industrial property, namely Article 332a, which makes it compulsory to transfer trade mark rights to domestic manufacturers if the trade marks concerned have been continuously used in the ten years preceding the entry into force of the law.

Will the Commission state in this connection:

- Is the provision of Article 332a of the law in question compatible with the Europa agreement and with European law in general?

- What would the consequences be for the continuation of Poland's accession negotiations in this field if the law on competition and consumer protection were adopted by the Polish Parliament as it stands?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Polish Parliament, in its final reading on 30 June 2000 adopted a new industrial property law including the provision in question. With a view to Poland's obligations under the Europe agreement, the Commission's initial analysis suggests that the amendment in question relates to property rights in the strict sense (ownership of the brand) rather than industrial property rights (whether the brand is protected). The Europe agreement does not cover private property rights, nor do the treaties (Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC treaty). The issue is therefore one for national rather than Community law.