ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Acquisition of land in the Czech Republic

What information does the Commission have about the possibility that, after the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union, the Czech Finance Ministry may be seeking to prevent citizens of other EU Member States from acquiring real estate in the Czech Republic, and what measures is the Commission considering, bearing in mind that it has always been stressed that when the Czech Republic accedes to the EU it will be required to accept the acquis?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Publication of answers to questions to the Commission

Will the Commission detail the steps it currently takes to enable all MEPs and the public to read the answers it has provided to parliamentary questions tabled by all MEPs?

In the interests of transparency, and in common with the practice of governments in many Member States, will the Commission arrange for answers to parliamentary questions to be published in the language originally used on the internet or intranet immediately after responses have been sent to the MEPs who tabled them?

And if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

Written questions and answers are published by the Parliament in 11 languages in the Official journal of the European Communities in line with Parliament's rules of procedure. As from OJ C 27 this year the Official journal is published electronically, see e.g. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex.

The Parliament also makes written questions and answers of the last two legislatures available on http://www.europarl.eu.int/questions/fr/default.htm which offers various search possibilities.

In addition the written questions and answers are published in Celex which offers advanced search features. The management board of the Publications office, of which all institutions are members, recently requested that Celex, EUDOR and EUR-Lex be integrated into a coherent on-line service for accessing all the Community official documents.

Finally the Commission understands that the Parliament makes available to Honourable Members the answers to written questions on an internal Parliament website immediately after receiving them from the Commission in one or two languages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/00

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Origin of goods tariff preferences

When the Community, upon presentation of a certificate of origin (Form A) endorsed by the customs authorities of the producer country, grants tariff preferences for the importation of products from certain developing countries and it subsequently (after importation) emerges that the origin has not been determined in accordance with Community rules, what penalties (without going into too much detail on national laws) does the Community importer generally incur? Likewise, what penalty is imposed on the customs officer who completes the customs formalities for such importations into the Community?

Furthermore, has the Commission organised over the past two years any training courses on Community rules of origin in the following countries: Rwanda, Congo Brazzaville, Congo Kinshasa, Liberia, Algeria and Indonesia?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The sanction generally incurred by the importer in cases such as that referred to by the Honourable Member is that he has to pay non-preferential customs duties even if he is unable to pass on the cost of the duties to the persons to whom he has meanwhile sold the goods. The importer only escapes these consequences when, under certain restricted conditions, his legitimate expectations are protected by Court of Justice case law. This is not the case when a certificate of origin A has been issued on the basis of incorrect declarations by the exporter. According to Court of Justice jurisprudence, a customs agent, by the very nature of his functions, undertakes liability for the correctness of the documents that he presents to the customs authorities.

Over the last two years, the Commission has organised a number of training seminars on rules of preferential origin under the Lomé Convention. The seminars are organised by region among the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP). In July 1998 two seminars were organised for West Africa, in Côte d'Ivoire (Participants: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo) and in Ghana (Participants: Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone). In March 1999 a seminar was organised for Central Africa in Cameroon (Participants: Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo-Brazaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, Central African Republic and São Tomé).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0723/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Violation of directives by insurance companies in Italy

Is the Commission aware that Italian insurance companies refuse to insure the vehicles of Italian citizens in southern Italy, particularly in Campania and Puglia, even though motor vehicle insurance is compulsory

under Italian law? For years, those companies have penalised citizens from southern Italy, charging higher insurance premiums in the above areas on the grounds that a large number of accidents occur in that part of Italy. This attitude leads to unequal treatment amongst Italian citizens, violates Community directives and makes it impossible for people to comply with the legal requirement that they obtain insurance.

Would the Commission not agree that a directive is required in order to put an end of such unequal treatment amongst Italian citizens and, at the same time, oblige companies operating in Italy to ensure southern Italian drivers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. It would point out that the third non-life insurance directive 92/49/EEC(1) introduced, in the case of motor vehicle insurance, a single authorisation and prudential and financial control system operated by the Member State in which the company has its head office. The taking up and pursuit of the business of insurance are subject to the granting of a single administrative authorisation by the authorities of that Member State. The conditions and scales of premiums no longer require the prior approval of the supervisory authorities of the home Member State, whose role is confined to monitoring forecasts of premiums and other financial resources intended to cover the company's commitments and solvency margin.

Consequently, in the specific case of Italian companies with their head office in Italy, these companies fall entirely under the financial supervision of the Italian authorities. In other words, the compatibility of Italian insurance companies' policies as regards premiums, which are designed to create technical provisions sufficient to cover their contractual commitments, should be considered in the light of the provisions of domestic Italian law and is the sole responsibility of the Italian supervisory authority.

Account must also be taken of the fact that companies fix their rates according to, among other things, the average frequency of accidents. According to their assessment of the risk, they are free to decide to modify their offer or even to leave certain areas of the national markets to their competitors.

For the rest, it is for the national authorities to provide for the appropriate mechanisms to ensure that policyholders can comply with their obligation to take out compulsory third-party insurance.

The Commission is consequently unable to intervene in an area which falls within the responsibility of the competent Italian authorities as regards monitoring and the commercial policy of companies.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0695/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against parents of mentally handicapped children by certain insurance companies

Does the Commission consider as compatible with the principles of non-discrimination the practice by certain insurance companies of doubling the life-assurance premiums charged to parents of mentally handicapped children?

If there is nothing in European Union legislation as it now stands to outlaw such injustice, will the Commission not propose ways and means of ensuring non-discriminatory access to this type of insurance contract?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the current negotiations for the renewal of the group life assurance contract (temporary optional membership) subscribed to by the Union nationale des associations de parents et amis de personnes handicapées mentales (Unapei) with a French assurance company. According to the latest information, the assurance company concerned has decided to pursue talks with Unapei, and in the meantime will maintain guarantees for the current year without raising premiums or reducing benefits.

The Commission shares parents' concern and strongly hopes the negotiations will succeed, thus maintaining present levels of coverage.

Regarding Community law in this field, the Commission would recall that the third insurance directives, specifically the third life assurance directive(1), laid down the principle of freedom to set rates and abolished preliminary or systematic checks on rates and contracts which the assurance companies proposed to offer. Companies will generally set rates so as to achieve a balance between contributions and the amount of provision necessary to cover amounts due, in the light of actuarial principles.

Since it is the duty of the home Member States to check the assurance companies concerned, the Commission cannot check premiums and give an opinion on their level. It is the task of the national institution to ensure that insurance premiums are appropriate and in accordance with reasonable actuarial assumptions to enable companies to meet their contractual commitments.

In addition, assurance companies must make available to the public the bases and methods used to assess technical provisions. Policy-holders are entitled to receive clear and accurate information in writing concerning the premiums felt to be appropriate and complaints procedures, including the existence of a complaints body if there is one, without prejudice to the right to take legal proceedings.

(1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Community aid for the processing of grape juices (DG Agriculture)

In the context of the reform of the COM in wine (Regulation EC 1493/1999)(1), due to come into force on 1 August 2000, and in accordance with Article 35 of the Regulation, Community aid for the processing of grape juices from table grapes (the use of which is illegal in winemaking) will no longer be granted. This lack of Community aid will involve an increase in production costs of ITL 11 986 per hectolitre for Italian grape juice producers. This will lead to social tensions, especially in the more economically disadvantaged regions. Can the Commission therefore say whether the implementing regulations for the COM in wine, which are currently being revised, might provide for the maintenance of aid for table-grape juices, so as to guarantee equal opportunities for all EU producers?

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the new market organisation (COM) for wine will come into force on 1 August 2000. Article 35(3) restricts aid on grapes, grape must and concentrated grape must used to make grape juice or other fruit products to wine grape varieties, i.e. those from which wine may be produced for the market.

No aid will therefore be paid for production of grape juice and other food products from table grapes of varieties not classified as wine grapes.

It was the Council's wish to restrict the aid to wine grapes, its purpose as part of the COM being to reduce the volume of wine on the market. Table grapes fall exclusively within the COM for fruit and vegetables.

Given this clear exclusion by the Council of aid for grape juice production from table grapes the Commission cannot propose any implementing provisions to the contrary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Meetings between Commission officials and Patrick Peter

How many meetings have Patrick Peter (of GTR and ADISA) and his consultant, Maitre Christian Lamonin, had with Commission officials?

Which officials were present at these meetings and when did they take place?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Honourable Member's question relates to a pending competition investigation. As regards parliamentary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the then member of the Commission in charge of competition policy dated 28 January 1999 to the then Chairman of Parliament's committee on Economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy which explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases.

Consequently, the Commission can only confirm that it has had several meetings with the representatives of the company GTR after GTR had introduced, in November 1997, a complaint against the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) and a number of other companies, in particular FOA and ISC. The Commission has never held private meetings with Mr Peter or his consultant Mr Lamonin as individuals. For confidentiality reasons, the Commission is not in a position to disclose the number of meetings with the complainant in questions, namely the GTR company, or the identity of those who took part in those meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Lack of a left-luggage facility at Malaga airport

The airport at Malaga (Spain), which has received EU funding from the ERDF, has helped to boost the tourist (and, hence, the economic) development of Andalusia's entire Costa del Sol and it provides convenient facilities for all its users, who currently number 8,5 million per year.

However, those facilities do not include storage for left luggage, an essential service which many transit passengers would like to be able to use at airports, railway stations and other transport termini.

Does the Commission think that such a service can be denied to passengers on safety or other grounds (which is the reason given by the Malaga airport authorities), thus inconveniencing passengers who may need such a facility?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

From a technical point of view, projects part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund are designed and developed by a Member State's competent authority in the context of an approved economic development strategy as agreed with the Commission. As a result, the Commission is not in a position to impose conditions for the use of the part-financed infrastructure other than those that ensure compliance with the legal framework for their operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 March 2000)

Subject: Production of Agent Orange by the European chemicals industry

On Tuesday, 22 February Belgium's Deputy Minister of Overseas Development stated in Vietnam that his country bore a responsibility towards the Vietnamese people for the large-scale use of Agent Orange as a chemical weapon by the American army. He said that the Belgian chemicals industry had been involved in producing the defoliant in Belgium. On Friday, 25 February, however, Fedichem (the federation of the chemicals-processing industry) formally denied the involvement of the Belgium chemicals industry in manufacturing Agent Orange,

To clarify this matter I should be grateful for answers to the following questions:

1. Were chemicals enterprises in Belgium involved in manufacturing of the defoliant Agent Orange, which was subsequently used by the American army as a chemical weapon in Vietnam, as the Belgian Deputy Minister has said?

2. Were chemicals enterprises in other EC Member States involved in manufacturing the defoliant Agent Orange, which was subsequently used by the American army as a chemical weapon in Vietnam?

Reply

(25 May 2000)

The issue, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question, has never been raised within the Council.

The Honourable Member will recall that the TEU, setting up the common foreign and security policy, has been concluded and has entered into force much later than the events referred to in his question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/00

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

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Arrest of the skipper of a fishing vessel on Réunion

The Galician citizen José Ramón Hombre Sobrido, skipper of the fishing vessel Camouco, was arrested more than two months ago on Réunion, where he is still being detained.

The Commission's Director-General for Fisheries did not give a specific reply to my question on the subject in Parliament's Committee on Fisheries.

Is the Commission aware of the situation, and does it know on what grounds this European citizen is being detained by the authorities of France, an EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

In September 1999 Mr Hombre Sobrido, the master of the fishing vessel Camouco, which flies a Panama flag and is owned by Merce Pesca sa, was arrested by a French frigate for alleged unlawful fishing of toothfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Crozet Islands (Reunion). Mr Hombre Sobrido was later released from arrest, but is still confined to the island as the authorities took away his passport.

On 14 January 2000 Panama requested the release of the vessel and its master in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. This is a tribunal which has been established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It delivered its judgement on 7th February 2000 ordering the prompt release on the deposit of a financial security of FRF 8 million. So far the French authorities did not follow the judgement and claim to be not satisfied with the conditions of the deposit. A trial date was scheduled at the Court of Appeals in Réunion for 24 March 2000 for the court to look into the matter of the return of Mr Sobridos passport. A trial on the merits has been convened for 4 April 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0521/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Rules on the manufacture of lint to be used for medicinal purposes

Under Directive 93/42/EEC(1) on medical devices, all medical devices marketed within the EU must carry the CE mark, which guarantees that the device meets the requirements laid down in the directive. On account of those requirements, European companies have had to make substantial investment and they have to bear the additional cost of quality management.

On the other hand, products made in China arrive at Community hospitals carrying the CE mark but they are not required to meet the standards demanded of Community companies. They do not therefore provide the medical guarantees offered by the CE mark and their manufacturers have not had to make the huge investment required of EU producers.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs? If so, what action does it intend to take in response to it?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission would like to stress that medical devices put on the market and into service in the Community and the European economic area (EEA), are submitted to the same rules and requirements regardless whether they are manufactured in the Community or EEA or imported from third countries.

Therefore the manufacturer or authorised representative, whenever the manufacturer does not have a registered place of business in a Member State, has to fulfil the provisions as laid down in Directive 93/42/EEC, and to ensure and declare their conformity. Then it can CE mark the devices.

On the other hand, it is up to Member States' authorities to ensure that the manufacturer duly fulfils its obligations.

Member States take all necessary steps that devices may be placed on the market and put into service only if they do not compromise the safety and health of patients and users. They shall use the safeguard clause whenever the health or safety of patients and users are put at risk. Under this clause, measures can be taken to withdraw such devices from the market or prohibit or restrict their being placed on the market or put into service.

Finally the Directive states that Member States shall not create any obstacle to the placing on the market or the putting into service within their territory of devices bearing the CE marking.