ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2952/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 September 2000)

Subject: Climate change levy

The United Kingdom Finance Act 2000 establishes a climate change levy and empowers the Government to implement this levy.

Will the Commission scrutinise this provision to ascertain whether the levy in question is a tax in the sense of the term relevant in and under the Treaties?

If so, will it ascertain whether it is in substance and effect a value added tax?

As such, is this not an illegal tax under Article 33 of the Sixth EC Directive on Value Added Tax, and will the Commission therefore undertake enforcement proceedings to prevent its being levied by the UK Government?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Article 33 of 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 allows the Member States, on certain conditions, to maintain or introduce taxes, duties or charges other than VAT, provided they cannot be characterised as turnover taxes(1).

In a series of judgments the Court of Justice has established criteria for assessing whether a levy can be characterised as such a tax. In one of the most recent judgments the Court considered it necessary to examine whether a levy jeopardised the working of the common system of VAT by affecting the movement of goods and services in a manner comparable to VAT, a manner it defined in the following terms: general application to transactions involving goods or services; taxation in proportion to the price of the transaction; collection at every stage of the production and distribution process; deduction at each stage of the tax due on purchases from that due on sales.

On the basis of the information available to it, the Commission feels that the levy cited by the Honourable Member cannot be characterised as a turnover tax of the kind prohibited by Article 33 of the Sixth Directive.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1788/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Asturian Rural Accommodation Network

At a meeting recently held by the Spanish Rural Tourism Association, attention was once again drawn to the importance which has been acquired, in the Community tourism sector, by the activities of those who promote this type of tourism in rural areas of the Community.

In this connection the activities pursued by the Asturian Rural Accommodation Network may be highlighted. This body operates in one of the most scenically attractive regions of the Community and the direct technical assistance which it provides to new promoters of rural tourism in Asturias has led to the creation of many direct jobs in the region and approximately half as many indirect jobs.

What Community aid has been provided for the development of the Asturian Rural Accommodation Network and to what extent, and in what way, can the promoters of this type of rural tourism in Asturias gain access to the Community aid available to the sector?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission is informed by the Spanish authorities that the Asturian Rural Accommodation Network has not received Community aid.

It should be said however that during the 1994-1999 period 8 500 000 from the Structural Funds (European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section) and European Regional Development Fund) was committed for rural tourism development in the Autonomous Community of Asturias under the Leader II Community Initiative and the Proder Operational Programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2304/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: The Interreg programme and Ceuta

Can the Commission estimate the amount of funding to be assigned to the Spanish region of Ceuta under the Interreg programme in the next programming period?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2302/00, E-2304/00 and E-2306/00 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

It is impossible at present to give any precise estimate of the volume and breakdown of Structural Fund appropriations that the region of Ceuta and Melilla will receive for the 2000-2006 programming period. Negotiations on Objectives 1 and 2 funding with the Spanish authorities are still in progress.

Likewise it is too early to say what amounts will be allocated to the region under the Community Initiatives Interreg and Urban.

In the case of Objective 1 the Commission sent each Member State a proposal for distribution of the available appropriations among the regions concerned. These proposals are based on the Commission's method of distributing Objective 1 appropriations among the Member States. The Commission is sending a copy of the proposal for Spain direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

It must be stressed however that these are merely indicative proposals. The actual allocation is agreed by the Member State and the Commission when the Community support framework or single programming document is adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2463/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Live cattle exports to Egypt

Recent reports have revealed that live bulls being exported from Germany to Egypt have been routinely castrated whilst on board the ship.

The iniquitous export refund system which permits this trade in live cattle to take place already ensures that animals suffer greatly from the long distances travelled and the inadequate conditions. Would the Commission agree that for adult bulls to be castrated in very primitive conditions is one suffering too many and that the whole live animal trade to Egypt must be suspended until guarantees are received that castration will not be allowed?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2463/00 and E-2481/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Commission considers that carrying out operations such as castration whilst the animals are being transported is a breach of the requirement in Article 5A1(b) of Directive 91/628/EEC OF 19 November 1991(1) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, on the protection of animals during transport(2). All animals require some time to recover from the trauma of such operations and it could be assumed that they are not fit for immediate onward travel.

Commission Regulation (EC) 615/98 of 18 March 1998(3) provides specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport to third countries. Under this Regulation every consignment of bovine animals sent to third countries is required to comply, during transport to the first place of unloading in the third country of final destination, with Community legislation in the field of the protection of animals during transport. In particular the Regulation provides for the checking of the animals after their arrival in the third country of final destination. If the result of these inspections (which must be carried out by a vet) is not satisfactory as far as animal welfare is concerned the payment of the export refund is refused or if already granted is recoverable.

The Commission has already received allegations that some male cattle and sheep shipped from some Member States to Egypt were castrated on vessels. However at this moment the Commission does not have evidence or even information that could support such allegations. The Commission has undertaken steps including consultation of the Member States involved with the aim to clarify the situation. It will take measures if necessary.

In 1999 21 593 male bovines for slaughter were exported from the Community to Egypt. 14 716 animals originated from Germany and 6 877 were exported from Italy. Export of live sheep rarely occurred (14 animals from the Netherlands).

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/00

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

(19 July 2000)

Subject: High speed road links between Santiago and Lugo and between Lugo and Ourense (Galicia)

On Saturday, 19 June, the Spanish Government's Ministry of Public Works' official responsible for Galicia said that the above high speed road links would be built in 2007. Are these roads provided for under the Community Support Framework which the Commission agreed with the Spanish Government for the period 2000-2006? What is the nature of these road links? What was the budget allocated to them, and what annual programming do the investments to be made come under?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

Having completed negotiations with the Spanish authorities, the Commission is now finalising the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework (CSF) for the Objective 1 regions of Spain, which include Galicia.

As the CSF does not go into detail on the projects to be financed during the programming period, it would be premature to comment at this stage on the particulars of projects that may be selected under the CSF's operational programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3468/00

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

(30 October 2000)

Subject: European shipbuilding industry

The European Shipbuilders' Association has lodged a formal complaint with the Commission against the subsidies and unfair competition employed by South Korea in the shipbuilding industry.

Will the Commission say whether this complaint meets the requirements needed for it to be able to take action against South Korea at the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?

If so, will the Commission say when it will take a decision on the complaint and take action at the WTO accordingly with a view to penalising and doing away with South Korean subsidies and dumping, so as to protect the legitimate interests of the European shipbuilding industry?

Will it explain the various stages involved in the proceedings at the WTO?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

On 24 October 2000, the committee of European Union shipbuilders associations (CESA) lodged a complaint under the trade barrier regulation (TBR) Council Regulation (EC) No 356/95 of 20 February 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO)(1) in order to eliminate certain trade practices caused by the subsidisation of commercial shipbuilding in Korea and which adversely affect Community sales of commercial vessels. The issue raised in the complaint has been for years an unresolved problem in the bilateral relations between the Community and Korea.

The Commission has from then 45 days to decide on the initiation of a Community examination procedure and to publish accordingly a notice in the Official journal. The examination procedure may take five months, and in the light of the conclusions of the investigation, the Commission may decide to resort to WTO dispute settlement. In such a case, the Community will first require to enter into consultations with Korea in order to find a satisfactory solution. If after 60 days from the request for consultations, there is no settlement, the Community may request the establishment of a panel.

(1) OJ L 41, 23.2.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Slovakia

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Slovakia on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2692/00, E-2693/00, E-2694/00, E-2696/00, E-2697/00 and E-2698/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the access to the Community of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which has not yet been opened for negotiation. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a highly hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present stage of the negotiating process the Commission is therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2961/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Right-wing extremism in the Member States

Austria has a law subjecting any form of national socialist revival activity to criminal prosecution (1947 prohibition statute, StGBl. No 13/1945, BGBl. No 25/1947); this law ranks equally with the constitution.

Paragraphs 3 to 3i list the various criminal offences and matching penalties. Penalties range, according to the offence, from one year to life imprisonment. Responsibility for implementing the procedure rests with the district courts sitting as jury courts.

Will the Council state:

- which Member States have comparable legislation?

- what differences exist between the Member States in terms of offences and penalties?

- whether it is necessary in the light of common European values to prosecute national socialist revival activity as a criminal offence?

The Council is asked to forward to the author, where appropriate, the various comparable laws.

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Parliamentarian that the specific information she has sought in her Question, concerning criminal offences and penalties in operation in the Member States, is not available within the Council at this stage.

The Council would, however, assure the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Council and the Presidency are committed to ensuring that criminal offences carried out for a racist or xenophobic purpose are dealt with in the Member States effectively and in a manner that reflects their seriousness. In that context, the Council might mention that the conclusions of the Tampere European Council recognised the need to step up the fight against racism and xenophobia.

The principal instrument adopted by the Council in relation to criminal offences linked to racism is the Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia. The overall objective of the Joint Action is to ensure that the Member States can assist each other in that area. In particular, it requires them to provide that certain forms of racist and xenophobic behaviour are punishable as criminal offences. Failing that, and pending the adoption of any necessary provisions, Member States are obliged to derogate from the principle of double criminality for such behaviour. The Joint Action is also designed to remove the risk that the perpetrators of racist or xenophobic offences might seek to exploit the fact that racist and xenophobic activities may be classified differently in Member States.

In May 1998, the Council examined a report on the fulfilment of the Joint Action by the Member States. The report concluded that the Member States had implemented the Joint Action to a very significant degree and the Council directed that a further review should take place in the year 2000. The Presidency is currently making arrangements to enable the review to be carried out. That exercise will assist the Council in assessing the overall effectiveness of the Joint Action and whether it needs to be strengthened.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2964/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Access to information

Does the Commission agree that information for EU citizens, for example as that provided under the Europe Direct Programme, should always be available in alternative formats, such as Braille, audio tape and large print, for the many EU citizens, including 7,4 million blind and partially-sighted people, who cannot read standard print?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission has taken several steps to improve access to information for blind and partially sighted people.

Europe Direct itself represents a move away from the traditional reliance on printed information, in that it is designed in the first instance as a free phone enquiry service based on a call centre with trained staff specialising in Community questions. It thus gives the citizens free choice as how to receive the information they are looking for.

The Commission has also moved much of its information provision onto the Internet, notably via the Europa site, where partially sighted readers can generally use an options menu to increase the font size. Making better use of digital technology in this context, including voice recognition and text-to-speech software is one of the points currently being examined by the Commission with a view to improving and developing the Europa web site.

The Commission's information in connection with the preparations for the euro in defining the technical characteristics of the Euro coins and notes is available in braille, and sign language projects, for instance, will be eligible for support under the 2001 European year of languages initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3171/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the olive oil market in Puglia (Italy)

What steps will the Commission take to prevent and crack down on the triangular arrangements under which certain Mediterranean countries (Tunisia, Morocco, etc.) are illegally importing into Italy poor quality groundnut, almond and olive oils to be used to adulterate Italian olive oil, particularly in the south of the country? These practices, which have been condemned by olive growers in the province of Brindisi, are responsible for the collapse in the price of Italian olive oil and the poor sales of this product.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The Member States are responsible for the policing needed to combat both the entry of adulterated products from non-Union countries and the marketing of such products within the Community. The Commission uses the resources available to it to promote research aimed at providing Member States with increasingly effective methods of detecting adulteration (see the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-1763/00(1)).

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 111.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3388/00

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: New aid scheme for coal with effect from 2002

At the coal seminar held on 17 October in Brussels and organised by the ECSC Advisory Committee, the Commissioner responsible for energy and transport stated that, once the ECSC Treaty expires, much of Community production will be unable to compete with imported coal, for which reason a new aid scheme is to be proposed with effect from 2002, when the ECSC Treaty expires.

When is the Commission Green Paper on security of supply in respect of the various energy sources due to be published and what role is it likely to allocate to Community coal?

What are to be the features of the new post-2002 aid scheme?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2000)

The Commission is intending to publish a Green Paper on security of supply before the end of the year 2000. It is planned that this document will present its reflections on the position of coal as part of Community energy supply after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty.

The Commission will not however be able to define the features of any proposal for a coal aid scheme until it has drawn conclusions from the discussion which the Green Paper ought to incite.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Lack of transparency in tendering procedures for Olympic Games projects in Greece

The Commission has reportedly asked for further clarification in connection with two Olympic Games sites, namely the Olympic Village and the equestrian sports centre, as it is concerned about the transparency of the procedures for awarding the contracts for the work.

1. What were the reasons which led the Commission to ask the Greek Government for further clarification?

2. Are the procedures followed in awarding the contracts consistent with Community legislation?

3. Are there any grounds for annulling the tendering procedure for these two Olympic Games projects?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that, as a result of complaints about the legality of the tendering procedure in connection with the construction of the equestrian events centre at Markopoulo, it wrote to the Greek authorities on two occasions to request information and clarification. The matter is still being considered by the Commission.

As for the Olympic Village, following reports in the Greek press and in a spirit of cooperation with the Member States, the Commission informally asked the Greek authorities for clarification regarding the award of six contracts for urban studies in connection with the project. The Greek authorities told the Commission that in the end these contracts were not going to be signed by the relevant minister and would be abandoned. The Commission has not received any other information on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(6 September 2000)

Subject: The persecution of Christian people in the Moluccas, Indonesia

Is the Council aware of a continuing campaign of intimidation, persecution and terror by the extremist Jihad Muslim warriors against innocent Christian people in the Moluccas, Indonesia?

What pressure will the Council bring to bear to stop this senseless killing?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The Council can inform the Honourable Member that the European Union has on a number of occasions, notably via the Heads of Mission of the EU Member States represented in Jakarta, expressed to the Indonesian authorities including the President and Vice-President of the Republic its grave concern at the inter-community strife in the Moluccas, even though a measure of calm has recently been restored. The Council has nevertheless requested free access for humanitarian organisations and plans to send a Union mission to the Moluccas to assess the humanitarian situation there. The Community is planning a further contribution in the form of humanitarian aid of approximately 2 million for displaced people. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that it will be keeping a close eye on any developments in the situation in the Moluccas.