ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: The Single European Authorisation Project

The Single European Authorisation project is a pilot project currently being run by UK Customs and its partners on the continent. The aim of this project is to enable a trader to make all customs declarations from one country.

However, there is, as yet, no common implementation plan, and this has resulted in each country in the EU negotiating separate agreements with its partners and thus creating multiple standards across Europe.

What plans has the Commission to encourage/implement a greater degree of cooperation and coordination in this project.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Commission is very conscious of traders' desire for simplification and harmonization, and in particular of their desire, where they have operations in more than one Member State (and a central place of main accounting) to be able to deal with just one customs administration for customs matters, instead of up to 15 (single authorizations).

Single authorizations are in the logic of the internal market and the Commission supports them. It is indeed already several years since the Commission first made proposals in this area. Indeed, the rules on end-use and customs procedures with economic impact already make explicit reference to single authorizations.

Nevertheless, the situation as regards release for free circulation (using the so-called simplified procedures) is more complex, since it raises issues such as the customs debt, VAT, statistics and the sharing of collection costs (the amount of money Member States are allowed to keep to cover their administration expenses).

While there is a general legal basis for single authorizations in the Community Customs Code, practical experience is needed. It has been agreed with the Member States that those which receive applications for single authorizations, can (with the agreement of the other administrations concerned) grant them. For its part, the Commission monitors progress and ensures a regular exchange of information within the framework of the Customs Code Committee. These projects are termed pilot projects and it is in this context that the project being operated by the United Kingdom is situated.

Unfortunately, progress on the pilot projects generally has been much slower than expected. Nevertheless, those that are now operating do seem to be operating smoothly and the Commission is hopeful that in future they will become more routine.

The Commission will continue to lend general support to the pilot projects and will continue to have exchanges of information in the Customs Code Committee. In addition, this issue will be promoted in the framework of a Customs-Trade seminar in Sweden planned for June 2001.

The Commission would be prepared to propose legislation within the limits of its powers should it prove necessary either to overcome a legal problem, or else to ensure uniformity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0790/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Export of live horses

The export trade in live horses for slaughter for meat has increased within Europe since the escalation of the BSE crisis.

Is the Commission aware of the appalling conditions in which the horses are transported and the inhumane treatment they receive prior to death?

Does the Commission support stricter regulations on the live transport of horses and all other animals?

Does the Commission support stricter regulations for the humane treatment of these animals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

At the Agriculture Council meeting of January 2001 the Commission presented a report on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of the Directive on the protection of animals during transport(1). This document has also been submitted to the Parliament.

The report indicates that given the gravity and frequency of the problems currently arising from the transport of horses for slaughter from Central and Eastern Europe into some Member States, stricter measures are needed.

The Commission considers stricter rules essential for the improvement of the current situation and has already taken initiatives in this direction:

- The Commission adopted Decision 2001/298 of 30 March 2001 amending the Annexes to Council Directives 64/432/EEC, 90/426/EEC, 91/68/EEC and 92/65/EEC and to Commission Decision 94/273/EC as regards the protection of animals during transport(2), to amend veterinary certificates for intra-Community trade of livestock including horses in order to refer to the fitness of the animals to be transported. This measure will enter into force from 1 August 2001.

- On 9 April 2001 a proposal for Council Regulation concerning ventilation systems of road vehicles used for journeys exceeding eight hours(3), including requirements for a minimum ventilation rate and mandatory systems for the monitoring the temperature inside the lorries has been adopted by the Commission.

Specific measures for the protection of horses including a provision to unload, rest, water and feed the animals arriving at the border of the Community will be addressed before the end of the year. The Commission has requested the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare to report on animal transport, with particular reference to travelling times and loading densities. On receipt of the report, expected for the end of 2001, the Commission will propose the appropriate revision of legislation in this area.

(1) COM(2000) 809 final.

(2) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001.

(3) COM(2001) 197 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Bread and food safety

Recent scares concerning the safety of food products, which have necessitated drastic decisions affecting certain animal species, must not make us forget that the issue of safety, in particular consumer protection, also concerns the product commonly sold as bread, but which sometimes is not bread, at least until the ingredients of bread have been clearly defined. The continually expanding production of industrial bread, no longer made solely with wheat flour, is leading to the opening of new sales outlets, to the detriment of the small-scale bakeries. However, the need to ensure food safety, product quality, proper consumer information and genuine competition should lead the legislators to define more clearly what is meant by bread.

Does the Commission not consider it appropriate and useful to propose a revision of the legislation on bread and a clear definition of home-baked bread compared with industrial bread.

Does it agree that only the product made from wheat flour, water, yeast, olive oil (or butter or lard), with or without salt, should be defined as bread?

Does it not consider that in order to ensure the authenticity of the product and proper information to consumers industrial bread should bear a label indicating where it was made?

Does it not consider that home-baked bread should be sold where it is made?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

There is no Community legislation establishing standard provisions on the composition of bread.

In the Commission's view, it would be difficult to pass such legislation given that the products concerned are so varied and there are so many local customs and traditions in this regard.

However, as with all foodstuffs, bakery products are covered by Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(1).

Prepackaged products of this kind must therefore bear a label providing certain mandatory information in keeping with the stipulations of the Directive, particularly a list of ingredients, so that the consumer has the information he needs to make an informed choice.

Where the products are not prepackaged, the information for the consumer must still be provided but, as indicated in Article 14 of Directive 2000/13/EC, the Member States must adopt rules concerning the manner in which the information is shown.

As regards particulars of the product's place of origin or provenance, Article 3(8) of the aforementioned Directive stipulates that these must be indicated on the label where failure to give such particulars might mislead the consumer.

Finally, the Commission takes the view that imposing an obligation to sell certain types of products where they are made would run counter to the basic principle of freedom of trade and industry.

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0232/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: VAT on garage rentals

In the United Kingdom, the practice is that where a tenant takes both the lease of a house or flat and the lease of a garage, paying rent for both to the local Council or a Housing Association, the Treasury regards the garage as part and parcel of the letting of the domestic accommodation and therefore treats the garage rent as exempt from VAT.

However, where a person who is not a tenant of Council accommodation takes the lease only of a lock-up garage from the local Council, VAT is levied on that garage rental because it is considered that there is no domestic property rental with which to associate that lease.

This situation leads to an inequity between tenants of garages, since one may be paying VAT while another will not, though the garages may be identical.

In the interests of equity and equality, does the Commission have any power to alter this situation, either directly or through a new proposal, so that either all tenants pay VAT on the rent for a garage owned by a public body or the exemption should apply to all tenants?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Under Article 13B(b) 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), the letting and leasing of immovable property is generally exempt from VAT, irrespective of the nature of the entity making the supply. However there are specific exclusions from this exemption, one of which is the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles.

The question as to whether various goods or services supplied simultaneously are single or multiple supplies has been addressed by the Court of Justice on several occasions. With regard to the letting of a garage in conjunction with a domestic property it is felt that the garage is a minor ancillary element subsumed into the principal supply and consequently is treated the same for tax purposes(2). The same principle would apply to outhouses, garden sheds and green houses.

Thus from a VAT point of view there is no inequity here because the comparison is not between the letting of two garages but between the letting of a garage and the letting of a dwelling. It is only the particular nature of the latter supply that warrants an exemption from VAT. With the letting of a garage on its own, the difficult question of the taxation of a person's permanent residential dwelling does not arise and there can therefore be no possibility of exemption.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) Skatteministeriet v. Henriksen CJEC C-173/88.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1872/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Germany)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Germany have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Germany have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/01

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Amalgam and health

Does the Commission consider that the use of amalgam is a public health problem in the Union? If it does, does it have a plan for future action?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Dental amalgams are medical devices covered by the Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993(1) on medical devices. In 1997, a Working Group, set up under the Medical Devices Experts Group, composed of representatives of national authorities, patients, the dental profession and industry produced a report on the use of dental amalgams in relation to health risks. It concluded, inter alia, that all dental restorative materials have the potential for causing some adverse reactions and that most contain components which are toxic. However, it also concluded that currently available data indicate that mercury from dental amalgams will not cause an unacceptable risk to the general population. Local reactions to dental amalgams fillings and other dental restorative materials do occur but are relatively rare; cases have also been reported of such reactions to materials used as alternatives to dental amalgams. According to the report, the benefits of restoring teeth with dental amalgam outweigh significantly the documented risks, and the risk-benefit ration corresponds to the currently acknowledged and accepted state of the art.

Commission and national authorities, in close co-operation with other interested parties, keep the use of dental amalgams under constant scrutiny and follow attentively the development of substitutes and their impact on health.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1104/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease

When was the European Commission first informed by the British Government, either formally or informally, of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Information on the first two outbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Great Britain was provided by telephone by the Chief Veterinary Officer of the United Kingdom, to the Head of the competent Unit of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection of the Commission, on 20 February 2001 at about 21h15 (Brussels time) i.e. a few hours after the laboratory confirmation of disease.

About one hour later, after an exchange of views between the relevant Commission's officials on the most urgent actions to be taken, all Chief Veterinary Officers of the Member States were informed by the Commission via fax.

On 21 February 2001, in collaboration with the United Kingdom, the Commission formally adopted Decision 2001/145/EC of 21 February 2001 concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom(1) as a safeguard measure, to forbid the dispatch from the United Kingdom of the animals and animal products, which may potentially spread foot-and-mouth disease virus.

(1) OJ L 53, 23.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1167/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Zimbabwe Resolution

What action has been taken against the Zimbabwean Government following the resolution of the European Parliament (R5-0156/2001)? What steps have been taken to identify overseas assets held by President Mugabe and his supporters? Has development cooperation assistance (for which the Commission is responsible) managed by the Zimbabwean Government and its agencies been suspended?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Identification of the overseas assets of President Mugabe and his supporters would be an early step in direction of preventive sanctions. However, taking this step would require a common position of the Union under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).

Discussions in the CFSP fora indicate a consensus in favour of Political Dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, and against any form of sanctions at this stage. President Mugabe has welcomed this initiative and the Troika Heads of Mission in Harare have been instructed to carry out the Dialogue. The Union's policy of Dialogue will be reviewed at the General Affairs Council in June 2001.

At present, the Commission shares the publicly expressed views of the leader of the Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) opposition, Mr Tsvangirai, that sanctions should be applied in response to a severe deterioration: suspension of the Constitution or cancellation of Presidential Elections.

Development co-operation assistance managed by the Commission has been re-oriented to the social sectors. The Commission believes that a collapse of basic social services would have extremely high costs in terms of human suffering and ulterior rehabilitation.

The Commission has therefore maintained its programmes in the areas of primary health and education. This assistance, agreed with the Government of Zimbabwe, is directed towards the most vulnerable groups of the population. The projects are designed to ensure that the funds reach the poorest, in the knowledge that without Community support those children would not attend school and the sick would not be treated.

Given the nature of this type of assistance, it is likely that even if the Union decided to apply sanctions against Zimbabwe, these humanitarian/social oriented programmes to alleviate poverty would still be maintained.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of the Lowe report on the ECHO fraud

It is in the general interest that the report drawn up by Philip Lowe, a senior Commission official, concerning the irregularities at ECHO in respect of the three projects involving contracts with Messrs. Perry Lux, in which large sums of money disappeared, be published.

When will the Commission be publishing this report and why has it not yet been published?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The report by Mr Lowe was drawn up for the purposes of an administrative investigation that was initiated in order to clarify all the possible responsibilities for certain alleged actions and, in particular, the regularity of specific contracts signed by the Commission for financing humanitarian actions.

The Commission grants very broad access to information to Parliament in order to ensure transparency and openness. However, as already pointed out in the framework of the 1998 discharge procedure(1) two exceptions to this access require and justify confidentiality. The first concerns sensitive reports on administrative investigations which may lead to other procedures, and the second concerns detailed minutes of the disciplinary board.

Mr Lowe's report necessarily contained references that have direct implications for individual rights. It must, therefore, remain confidential and cannot be published.

(1) Statement by the Member of the Commission responsible for the budget in the plenary debates on 11 April 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Negotiations with the Spanish Government concerning the opening of proceedings in respect of state aid to Spanish electricity companies

It was reported in the media that proceedings were to be brought in connection with the state aid given to Spanish electricity companies cover the costs of transition to competition. However, the efforts made by Vice-President de Palacio succeeded in delaying the case. January has now gone by without proceedings being opened, whether because of Mrs de Palacio's efforts or for other reasons.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Monti stated during the Davos Summit that progress was being made in negotiations with Spain on the subject. In addition, it has been announced that as a consequence of the merger between Endesa and Iberdrola the CTC could be waived.

Is there any reason other than the pressure brought to bear by Mrs de Palacio why the proceedings have not been opened?

What progress has been made in the negotiations with the Spanish Government?

Has the Spanish Government indicated that it intends to amend the legal provisions governing CTC?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2001)

1. In the case of the costs of transition to competition (CTC) arrangements in the Spanish electricity sector, as in cases of stranded costs in electricity sectors in the other Member States, the Commission thinks it more appropriate to await the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-379/98(1) before taking any decision. The judgment was delivered on 13 March 2001. It still needs to be examined in detail from the point of view of the assessment of stranded costs.

2. The progress consists in the fact that the Spanish authorities have taken note of a number of points put forward by the Commission in the context of its examination of the case.

3. The Spanish authorities adopted a decree-law on 2 February 2001 amending in particular the sixth transitional provision of Spanish Electricity Sector Act No 54/1997 of 27 November 1997. The new decree-law contains two elements of importance to the Commission: first, the removal of the securitisation and second, the fact that the CTC payments will no longer be funded by levies on imported electricity.

(1) PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG.