ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Common immigration policy

In view of the measures adopted by certain Member States (essentially, policing measures or ones which restrict individual rights as regards immigration control), does the Commission not believe there to be a need for a common immigration policy as a guarantee that all the Member States will introduce essentially civilian procedures for regulating third-country immigration? What progress has been made in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The appropriate framework for asylum is the Geneva Convention ((Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees. )). As for immigration at present each Member State has its own rules. The Commission for its part reaffirms the guidelines set out in its February 1994 communication on immigration and asylum ((Commission communication of 23 February 1994 to the Council and Parliament on immigration and asylum policies: COM (94) 23 final. )) where it stressed the need for an overall and balanced approach to the matter of immigration. This approach must be based on an efficient control of migration flows, be consonant with the Union's objectives and be multi-faceted involving:

- action on the root causes of migration through a development policy formulated accordingly;

- a clear policy on the rules of admission into the Union for nationals of non-member countries who wish to reside there in order to work, to study or to live as a family;

- residence rules for nationals of non-member countries residing legally in the Union, in particular those established in a Member State on a long-term basis;

- an effective campaign against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

Following entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, the Council has continued action on this front and adopted a number of texts relating to the admission of nationals from non-member countries and more than fifteen texts on the expulsion of illegal migrants ((Most of these texts were published in OJ C 274, 19.9.1996. )).

While acknowledging the importance of the fight against illegal immigration, the Commission has, on a number of occasions, emphasized its concern at the imbalance between the scale of action on expulsions and the absence of a clear policy on rules for admission. It has stressed, in particular, that the instruments adopted by the Council in this area (resolutions, conclusions, recommendations) provide little in the way of legal certainty. For this reason, the Commission has stated on numerous occasions that it was preparing a draft text on this general approach to admisssion which would make the legal situation clearer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Taxes on business companies

Does the Commission think that certain companies can devise tax strategies that give them a better deal in terms of company tax and seeking à la carte regional incentives and Community subsidies, and that these strategies are diluting the compensatory effects for backward or less-favoured regions and are affecting freedom of competition in the internal market?

Can it be claimed that European SMUs enjoy the same opportunities to devise such tax strategies as other, larger undertakings?

Does the Commission believe that these subjects should be included in our thinking on tax harmonization in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of Commission (15 May 1997)

Community subsidies for businesses in assisted areas are subject to the tax regime applicable in the region concerned. Such aid may, under no circumstances, exceed the aid intensity ceilings authorized by the Commission under the competition policy. The ceilings are expressed in terms of net grant equivalent, in order to take account among other things of the different tax treatment of such aid as between Member States and regions.

These subsidies are available to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the regions concerned. Similarly, the tax regime which applies to these subsidies applies to SMEs as well as to larger businesses.

Regarding company taxation, the level of corporation and other taxes on businesses is a matter for Member States, provided that the measures taken by Member States do not distort competition in the internal market and do not prevent the smooth functioning of the internal market. Moreover, the Commission has set up a taxation policy group, chaired by the Member of the Commission with special responsibility for taxation and consisting of personal representatives of the Member States' Finance Ministers, to examine the possibility of common solutions in the tax area. This group started work on 11 March and further meetings are to take place shortly. One important issue in the group's discussions is measures to avoid harmful tax competition. The taxation of SMEs has also been identified as a possible area of future discussion within the group.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0635/97 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Competition rules in the postal services sector

The European Parliament delivered an opinion on postal services on 9 May 1996, after which a political agreement was reached on the subject in Council on 18 December 1996.

Now, instead of waiting for the legislative procedure to run its course, it appears that the Commission intends to publish a communication on the application of competition rules to the postal services sector, and that this communication embodies a strongly regulatory approach and might, therefore, call into question the positions taken by Parliament and the Council.

What is the situation? Would it not be preferable for the Commission to shelve this communication and wait for the adoption of a directive?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1997)

A communication is an appropriate, legally non-binding instrument for setting out the Commission's views on a matter of major importance such as the application of competition rules to postal services, both the reserved and liberalized sectors, and its practical consequences.

Over a year ago, the Commission announced its decision to defer publication of the communication until such time as a decision on the proposal for a directive concerning the common rules for developing postal services in the Community had been taken or until not later than the end of 1996.

The Commission welcomes the political compromise reached by the Council (Telecommunications) on 18 December, particularly as regards certain services that may be reserved for universal-service providers. It is confident that, in the months ahead, this compromise will form the basis of a common position on the proposal for a Parliament and Council directive that will serve the interests of both individuals and businesses in the Community.

The compromise will expidite the drafting process in that the communication will provide the necessary clarification for all those involved and will be consistent with the contents of the directive.

On completion of this work, the Commission will adopt the definitive text of the communication and will decide on the most opportune date for its publication.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1477/97 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Vehicle fleet for Commission members - risk analysis

Further to the answer given to written question no P-0573/97 ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 213.)), will the Commission state:

1. Who carries out the risk analysis on the basis of the information supplied by the Member States so that the necessary measures can be implemented in respect of the vehicles and homes of Commission members in order to guarantee the latter's safety?

2. Is this task performed by a Member State authority, or is the risk analysed by an EU institution?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

1. The Commission analyses the risks in conjunction with the Member States' authorities and arrives at its own conclusions.

2. The Commission has instructed its Security Office to assess the risks affecting each of its Members on the basis of the information provided by the security and police authorities of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in Spain

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure in Spain?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0323/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in Italy

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure in Italy?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1250/97 by Lone Dybkjær (ELDR) to the Commission (2 April 1997)

Subject: Orphan drugs

A large proportion of patients with rare illnesses lack effective treatment options at the present time. It is therefore welcome that the orphan drugs proposal seeks to introduce European legislation that can provide an incentive for the pharmaceuticals industry to develop medicines for treating rare illnesses. However, the orphan drugs proposal prompts certain questions.

1. How will it be ensured that the really rare illnesses benefit from the orphan drugs proposal?

2. How will it be ensured that patients/patients' associations are represented on the general steering committee?

3. When is it anticipated that the legislation might enter into force?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1997)

The Commission would first stress that the final contents of the future proposal for a regulation have yet to be decided.

1. As the Honourable Member points out, the purpose of introducing legislation to confer on certain medicinal products the status of 'orphan drugs' must be to encourage the pharmaceuticals industry to develop medicinal products to treat rare diseases where it appears that such development will not produce sufficient profits to warrant the necessary investment. In this context, one criteria for eligibility for 'orphan drug' status must be the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a rare disease.

2. To determine whether 'orphan drug' status should be granted to a given medicinal product in response to an application to that effect, the Commission should consult a committee, on which patients would have to be represented.

3. The proposal for a regulation could be put before Parliament and the Council in the first half of 1997. The date on which the text takes effect will depend on the progress of the subsequent legislative procedure. The Commission is hoping it will be implemented rapidly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/97 by Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Representation of Macedonia on the 'European Union' map

A 'European Union' map produced by Commission DG X is distributed in the lobby of the IPE 3 building and at other European Union centres.

Most of the non-member states bordering on the EU are clearly represented as such. The exception is Macedonia.

Why is the name of this aspiring new democracy not displayed in the same banner-style lettering that is used for the names of all the other states, so that the impression is bound to be created that this cannot be a sovereign state?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The Commission uses the provisional name 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (FYROM) which has been used by the United Nations since 1992 and under which the Community entered into diplomatic relations with that country in 1995.

For cartographic purposes, in order to prevent names from spilling over from the border region combined with the fact that two different alphabets (Latin and Cyrillic) must be used to indicate the name of the FYROM, it was necessary to reduce the size of the characters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/97 by António Capucho (PPE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: 'DIRECTORIA V' Convention (24-26 February 1997)

I have noted with great surprise and indignation that various documents referring to the above initiative were published in seven languages, excluding Portuguese.

I have also discovered that simultaneous translation arrangements do not include Portuguese.

Moreover, a number of the languages used in both cases are spoken less widely than Portuguese (SV/GR).

On the basis of the provisions of the Treaties and the most elementary rules of equity to be complied with in such decisions, I would ask the Commission:

1. on what criteria such a serious and unacceptable decision was based;

2. whether it intends to alter this situation in future.

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

Directoria V was organized by the City of Strasbourg with financial support from the Commission and the assistance of interregional cooperation networks and organizations representing local and regional authorities.

Translation of the information documents and interpretation was into six languages. To keep costs within reasonable bounds the languages selected were those most generally used by the participants. However, during one part of the event - the partnership forum interpretation was provided into Portuguese for those who wished it.

On the basis of the assessment report for Directoria V the Commission will look at the case for and possibility of extending the number of languages for which interpreting and translation are offered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1595/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Equal opportunities

The EU institutions have recently been discussing a Commission communication on equal opportunities for the disabled.

When they met in Brussels on 2 December 1996, the Ministers for Social Affairs adopted a resolution in which they undertook both to revise their national policies so as to enable disabled people to enjoy equal rights and opportunities and to abolish all forms of unfair discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Will the Commission take active steps to ensure that disabled people can take part in all the main Community programmes? Will it also ensure that new technologies, which should be designed to meet the needs of the visually handicapped and persons with physical or mental disabilities, are exploited for that purpose?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

As part of its new approach to ensuring equal opportunities for the disabled, the Commission has placed emphasis on certain priorities, including those referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

For example, the Commission intends to strengthen the mandate of its inter-service group so that the mainstreaming dimension is effectively applied to the benefit of the disabled, in particular by giving them access to Community programmes and initiatives. It also intends to ensure the development of new technologies in the information society, in a manner which takes account of the needs of all European citizens. In this connection, the needs of the disabled, particularly the visually handicapped and those with physical or mental disabilities, constitute an absolutely vital aspect of the promotion of these new technologies. Similarly, the ad hoc internal group to be established in the very near future as part of the new strategy will study the possible need for a specific Community initiative on exploiting new technologies to help the disabled.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1704/97 by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: The right of non-EU citizens to visit EU employees in Brussels

A Swedish employee (agent temporaire) of the European Parliament in Brussels intended to invite a friend who is a Peruvian national living in Sweden but was told by the municipal authorities in Etterbeek that, as a person employed by the European Parliament on a temprorary basis and a holder of the Belgian ID card which goes with his position, he did not have the right to sign a 'prise en charge'. This means that temporary staff, who may be resident in Brussels for several years, do not have the right to invite non-EU citizens to visit them in Brussels.

Is the information given to the employee in question correct and in keeping with Belgian law?

If so, does the Commission not consider that such legislation runs counter to the objective of an open Europe and reinforces the impression that the EU is putting up barriers to keep out people from third world countries? Is it planning to take any action regarding this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts in order to obtain all available information on the matter described. It will not hesitate to initiate the procedure provided in Article 169 of the EC Treaty, should this prove necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0879/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Public service obligations

In connection with 'Public service obligations in the internal energy market' (CES 1269/96) it should be noted that the creation of the internal market in energy is one of the foundations of the Community energy policy. It is undeniably important to supply the population with gas and electricity and for this reason economic efficiency must be subordinated to meeting society's needs, such as the regular and continuous supply of these products, which is a vital social policy objective.

It should also be stressed that in a legal framework of minimum criteria, particular attention should be devoted to achieving the greatest possible balance between the rules of competition and respect for and execution of public service obligations.

The Member States must lay down minimum criteria at legislative level for the definition of these obligations, in order to provide operators with a basic legal framework. The Member States must impose obligations in a transparent and non-discriminatory way, in accordance with Community law and the Commission must be informed about these obligations.

Could the Commission possibly incorporate in the Treaty the concept of public service and the principles underlying it, or else adopt a 'public service charter' to be annexed to the Treaty itself which, by virtue of its interpretative value, would give Community law greater transparency and legal certainty?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

In its communication on 'Services of general interest in Europe' ((COM(96) 443 final. )), the Commission advocates that, on the occasion of the Intergovernmental Conference, a reference to the promotion of services of general interest be written into Article 3 of the EC Treaty. While prime responsibility for this area of action would remain with the Member States, such an amendment would - without constituting a new legal basis - make it possible to establish that services of general interest are a dimension to be taken into account in defining Community action and framing policy.

The Commission considers this to be the case in the electricity sector. European Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity ((OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. )) presents an approach balanced between public service obligations and the opening-up of the market to competition.

Article 3(2) of the Directive defines the areas in which Member States may impose public service obligations on undertakings operating in the sector, viz. security (including security of supply), regularity, quality and price of supplies and environmental protection. The Article also stipulates that these obligations must be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable. Accordingly, Member States must notify them to the Commission, which will check that they are appropriate and in proportion. They will be published, as will any revisions.

The Commission will pay particular attention to the proper application of this Article.