ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/96 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Infringement No. B/95/2264 (Belgium - misuse of the 'Bio' label with regard to prepackaged meat)

In reply to my Written Question P-2215/95 ((OJ C 300, 13.11.1995, p. 49. )) of 18 July 1995 on the marketing of prepackaged beef with a 'Bio' label guaranteeing hormone-free meat, Commissioner Bangemann wrote on 7 September 1995 that 'the advertising aimed at consumers to present the use of the term 'Bio' on meat packaging as meaning that it does not contain hormones could meet the criteria for misleading advertising by Directive 84/450/EEC ((OJ L 250, 19.9.1994, p. 17. )) on misleading advertising.

The Commission therefore intends to inform the Belgian authorities of the questions raised by the Honourable Member'.

In a letter dated 11 October 1995 to Belgium's Permanent Representative to the European Union, the Director-General of DG III said that the fact that the national monitoring authorities did not appear to have initiated proceedings to end this practice could constitute an infringement of the obligation to apply Community law properly.

The Director-General called on the Permanent Representative to make representations to the Belgian authorities to make their comments known to the Commission within four weeks.

1. Have the Belgian authorities acted on the request made by the Director-General of DG III in his letter to the Belgian Permanent Representative? If so, what comments have the Belgian authorities made in response to the Commission's analysis?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take (or what steps has it already taken) to follow up this declaration of infringement of the application of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 april 1996)

The Belgian authorities have replied by again pointing out that there is no definition of the term 'bio' in national law. The laws intended to fight against misleading activities must therefore be invoked. In this case this means the national laws transposing Directive 79/112/EEC ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )) on the labelling of foodstuffs and Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading advertising. It is for the national authorities to ensure that compliance with these provisions is monitored. The Belgian authorities feel, that the use of the term 'bio' in connection with this legislation, is not likely to mislead consumers as regards the characteristics of the product at issue.

This being so the Commission does not intend to examine this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0661/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Anonymous bank transactions in Italy

Council Directive 91/308/EEC ((OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77. )) of 10 June 1991, on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, states that in the Member States credit institutions shall 'require identification of their customers by means of supporting evidence'.

In Italy, financial transactions under LIT 20 million do not require identification.

Is this still possible in 1996?

If so, is it permissible under this directive?

If it is not, how long has the Commission known that the directive has been infringed?

What has the Commission done to ensure that the directive is complied with?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0660/96, E-0661/96, E-0662/96 and E-0663/96 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

Article 3(1) of Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering requires Member States to oblige their credit and financial institutions to demand identification when a customer opens an account. Article 3(2) extends the identification requirement to other non-account holding customers when the proposed business involves an amount of ECU 15 000 or more in a single or series of linked transactions. As a result the Directive does not require the identification of casual customers transacting business of less than ECU 15 000, unless there is already a suspicion of money laundering (Article 3(6)).

The above mentioned provisions of the Directive have been implemented in national law by the Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member. The threshold is fixed in France at FF 50 000, in Italy at Lit 20 million, in Belgium at ECU 10 000, and in Germany at DM 20 000. The Commission has no evidence that these thresholds are not being respected.

Full details of the Member States' implementing legislation is to be found in the Commission report on the application of the money laundering Directive ((COM(95) 54 final, 3.3.1995. )), which is under consideration by Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0245/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (9 February 1996)

Subject: ERDF support for the Maastricht-Aachen airport

From the Commission's answer of 20 December 1995 to my written question 3050/95 ((OJ C 109, 15.4.1996, p. 19. )) of 15 November 1995 it is not clear to me whether it shares my view that 'the prospects of Beek airport particularly from the financial point of view are extremely poor'. An evaluation report on the Maastricht-Aachen airport published by the Stichting De Rentmeesters on 16 January 1996 has once again raised the question of the airport's viability.

Does the Commission also share the view expressed in the Stichting De Rentmeesters evaluation report on the Maastricht-Aachen airport that even with expansion involving an east-west runway and night flights, a viable operation of the airport is extremely unlikely and questionable because of the costs ignored in the official forecasts?

In the light of this report and the studies listed in my question 3050/95, is it reasonable to grant further ERDF funds to the Maastricht-Aachen airport and the areas of wasteland for airport-linked activities?

Will this financially dubious undertaking not be used in the Netherlands as an argument for subsidizing the continued existence or even expansion of Maastricht-Aachen airport, contrary to the efforts to limit noise and environmental pollution caused by air traffic in this densely-populated area?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 March 1996)

When the contribution of the European regional development fund (ERDF) to the joint development of the business site was assessed, the conclusion was that even without further developing the airport, the site could be developed into a successful business site. This was because of the good location and the limited number of high quality business sites in South Limburg.

As a consequence, the projections of the different studies of the financial expectations regarding the expansion of the airport are less relevant. The ERDF contribution has, however, been awarded conditionally. The conditionality concerns the availability of cofinancing for the intended business site by other parties. The contribution has not been made dependent on whether or not the airport will be developed. One cannot therefore speak of a contribution towards the maintenance or expansion of the airport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/96 by Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: European pensioner's identity document

German pensioners have recently been refused a reduction in public transport fares in the Netherlands even though Netherlands pensioners have been allowed to purchase tickets at reduced prices. This was justified on the grounds that these were not pensioners according to Netherlands law.

I therefore ask the Commission

1. Is there a uniform European pensioner's identity document?

2. If not, is such a document necessary to be able to take advantage of the same concessions as are available to pensioners in the country of temporary residence concerned?

3. What action will the Commission take to ensures that any such misunderstandings can be avoided in future?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)

There is no common European proof of pensioner status and there is no plan to propose harmonisation of Member States' policies in this area. There is however a Commission Recommendation of 10 May 1989 ((OJ L 144 of 27.5.1989. )) for the introduction of a common 'over sixties card' which would make existing rights of older people visible, especially when travelling outside their own Member State. No Member State has so far chosen to implement this recommendation. Portugal has however recently established a working group to examine the issue.

The Commission is currently engaged, with non governmental organizations, in identifying measures by which progress might be made towards better access by older people to the concessions to which they are entitled. The aim is to develop models which Member States could adapt to meet their own particular circumstances. This could eventually provide a common basis for reciprocal benefits and mutual recognition within the Community. The results of a feasibility study should be available in mid 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/96 by Peter Pex (PPE) and James Janssen van Raay (PPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Plans by the Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) to set up a separate sports channel

1. Is the Commission aware of the plans of the KNVB to set up a sports channel of its own in the Netherlands?

2. Does this entail the formation of an illegal cartel?

3. In granting the new sports channel the rights to football coverage in the Netherlands, was the tender procedure adhered to correct, given that the KNVB issued a call for tenders and then awarded the exclusive rights to a company of which it will itself become a shareholder?

4. How can provisions be included in European broadcasting legislation to prevent the establishment of monopoly rights to broadcast cultural events of general public interest?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

1. Yes.

2. It is too early yet to indicate whether the KNVB's plan amounts to an illegal cartel. On 13 February 1996 the Commission received a briefing paper on the letter of intent between the KNVB and the consortium, but it awaits the notification by the parties of the full agreement.

3. At this moment it is too early to answer this question in view of the fact that the notification of the full agreement is still awaited.

4. In broadcasting the Commission is careful to ensure that markets remain open and that programme access is guaranteed to all operators, in accordance with the access principle established in its Decision 89/536/EEC of 15 September 1989 ((OJ L 284, 3.10.1989. )) based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty concerning film purchases by German television stations. This Decision is the first of its kind to make clear that agreements relating to exclusive television rights can be contrary to the Community competition rules because of the number and duration of the rights, while an exemption is only possible if suitable access rights are available to third parties. In each case of acquisition of exclusive broadcasting rights under Article 85, the parties have been requested by the Commission to open the access of third parties to the programmes involved on a non-discriminatory basis. Moreover, recital 16 of the 'television without frontiers' Directive 89/552/EEC ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. )), which constitutes the legal framework for broadcasting in the internal market, states that 'it is essential for the Member States to ensure the prevention of any acts which may prove detrimental to freedom of movement and trade in television programmes or which may promote the creation of dominant positions which would lead to restrictions on pluralism and freedom of televised information and of the information sector as a whole.' The Commission thus considers it is already possible at Community and national level to prevent broadcasting rights from being monopolized.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Public transport season tickets for EU officials

The Commission's Directorate-General for Personnel has contacted the Brussels transport company (STIB) with a view to obtaining reduced-price season tickets for its officials. Negotiations are currently suspended.

Can the Commission confirm whether there is any truth in reports that the deadlock in the talks is due to its efforts to swap the annual package of tax-free products to which officials are entitled for free STIB season tickets for all members of staff?

Given that only 3 000 of the 15 000 Commission officials use public transport, does the Commission not believe that the only effect of this initiative by the Directorate-General for Personnel would be to swell the finances of the Belgian state which already benefits considerably from the presence of the Community institutions in its territory?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1996)

The Commission has presently no intention to swap the annual package of tax-free products for free season tickets on public transport.

The secretary generals of the European institutions will discuss the problem raised by the Honourable Members at one of their next meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Ban on individual sponsorships in Danish football

The Danish Football Union (DBU) has published an agreement covering the period from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1998 which sets out the terms to be accepted by Danish football players if they wish to play for the national team. The agreement stipulates that a national team player, even if included only once in the national squad, may not at any time during the said period conclude personal advertising agreements for products described as being of a similar nature to those of the DBU's sponsors (Den danske Mejerier). Such products include 'beverages of any kind'. Marketing experts say the ban thus covers about 40% of the personal sponsorships market.

Given that national team players are not employed by the DBU (but by their respective clubs), to what extent is the DBU in breach of EU competition rules by binding players to the agreement on a worldwide basis, 365 days a year, and hence even when they are not playing for the national team?

It should be recalled that, with its judgment in the Bosman case, the European Court of Justice has already signalled clearly to national football federations that they must respect professional footballers' individual rights. In view of this, the binding of even 'borderline' members of the national team to an agreement by the DBU is at best unnecessary and foolish, and at worst incompatible with EU competition rules.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (29 March 1996)

It may be that the Danish Football Union ban on individual sponsorships for Danish footballers who are in the national squad constitutes a restriction of competition.

The restrictive behaviour of the professional clubs or their representative organizations with regard to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty can be assessed only with full knowledge of the facts as viewed in their economic and legal context as well as of the distinctive features of the sector and the definition of the relevant market. The Commission has not as yet examined any situations similar to that described by the Honourable Member.

Accordingly, it is only if the Commission looks into the matter in full knowledge of the facts that it will be able to provide a detailed answer to questions of this kind.

At any event, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the judgment in the Bosman case relates to the individual rights of players as workers. The question put by the Honourable Member relates to an economic activity carried on by the players themselves. For such an activity, they could, therefore, be regarded as undertakings within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0349/96 by Luis Campoy Zueco (PPE) to the Council (26 February 1996)

Subject: Enlargement of the EU and adverse impact on the agricultural sector

What steps are to be taken to correct the serious imbalances in the agricultural sector which the planned accession to the EU of the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) will produce in some parts of the existing Member States?

Reply (3 June 1996)

Formal contacts within the framework of the structured dialogue between the Council (Agriculture) and the Ministers for Agriculture from the Central and Eastern European countries have recently been established. A first meeting was held in September 1995 while a second meeting is scheduled to be held in May 1996.

Given that the negotiations as such with a view to possible accession of the CEEC have not yet been started - the Commission is still examining the applications for accession with a view to delivering its opinion as provided for under the Treaty - it is not yet possible to foresee at this juncture what problems will have to be faced at the time of a future enlargement, taking account in particular of the dynamic development of the agricultural sector both in the Community and in the countries applying for membership.

In any case and on a general level, the Commission has already started discussions on these problems by submitting a series of reports on future enlargement of the European Union to the European Council in Madrid in December 1995.

On that occasion, the European Union called upon the Commission to take its evaluation of the effects of enlargement on Community policies further, particularly with regard to agricultural and structural policies. The European Union will continue its review at its next meetings on the basis of reports from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: Ban on access to Belgian universities

Further to my Question No 2194/94 ((OJ C 36, 13.2.1995, p. 51. )) and the answer given by the Commission, I have been informed that the educational authorities in Belgium are continuing to block the access to Belgian universities of persons holding secondary educational certificates from other Member States of the Union (Greece, France, etc.) by imposing very strict tests to establish the equivalence of their foreign educational certificates and diplomas and requiring them to pay FB 1000. The Belgian authorities base their attitude on the law of 19 March 1971 of the Arrêté royal of 20.7.1971 on the equivalence of foreign diplomas and certificates.

Does the Commission consider that this attitude adopted by the Belgian State is in keeping with the Treaty on European Union and Community legislation as regards education? Might this matter not fall within the scope of the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice in Case 47/93 ('minerval'), even though the Belgian authorities view it as a totally different matter? Has the Commission examined the present situation in order to ascertain whether the Belgian State has complied with the judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice? What action does it intend to take, if it emerges that the law of 19 March 1971 of the Arrêté royal of 20.7.1971 is incompatible with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1996)

The question is concerned with cases in which people holding secondary education certificates from other Member States are refused access to Belgian universities. In these cases, applicants are required to take very strict entrance examinations to be granted equivalent status.

The first thing I would point out is that the recognition of certificates and diplomas at all levels of education is a matter for the Member States. Under Article 126 of the EC Treaty, the Community merely has powers to encourage the recognition of certificates and periods of study. The Commission has developed a range of resources to facilitate and encourage mutual recognition, for instance university networking in the various subject areas, guides, data bases, information centre network arrangements (the Naric network) and the system of academic credit transfers.

As regards Written Question No 2194/94 which the Honourable Member refers to, I would point out that the Court of Justice's judgment in case No 47/93 was concerned with other reasons for non-admission than in this case, e.g. the requirement that students furnish proof of having been admitted to the university of origin and of having paid the 'minerval' or registration fee. This is a different matter and is currently the subject of infringement proceedings.

Having said that, the Commission intends to take a close look at the Belgian legislation referred to by the Honourable Member and to any specific information and individual complaints it receives with a view to appraising the scale of measures adopted by the Belgian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Nuclear power plant in Turkey

Fresh information that has come to my notice compels me to return to the question of the nuclear power plant in Turkey.

A Japanese firm has carried out a feasibility study for the nuclear plant at Akkuyu, while a Korean company, Kaeri-Gamb, took charge of the technical part of an international competition to find the lowest bidder to construct it.

Turkish environmentalists plan to form an 80 km long human chain on 25 May in protest at the proposed plant.

The Turkish Energy Ministry plans to build two nuclear plants for generating electricity by the year 2010.

Bearing in mind the customs union between the EU and Turkey, will the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of Turkey's plans described above;

2. whether those plans are consistent with European policy on the use of nuclear power;

3. whether a study of the human and environmental safety aspects exists; and

4. how it intends to react?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)

According to current administrative procedures in Turkey, the Turkish Ministry of Energy's decision to build a nuclear power station at Akkayu cannot be implemented without the approval of the Ministry of the Environment. Such approval should be given only after a detailed study of the effects upon the environment and the safety of the population. This study has not yet started.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Energy's decision has been the subject of legal proceedings instituted by a Turkish environmental NGO. The court has not yet given its judgment.

At this stage the Commission is watching developments closely.