ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/96 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Vehicle tax levied in Belgium

Company cars registered in Luxembourg and driven by Belgian frontier workers who work in Luxembourg are being subjected to vehicle tax by the Belgian customs authorities.

Are the Belgian authorities acting in accordance with internal market rules? Is this not a barrier to personal freedom of movement within the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1979/96 by Mr Schulz ((See page 59. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1824/96 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Reduction in the fishing effort for sardines

The Commission has announced that it intends to reduce catches of sardines on the Portuguese coast by 40% in the period up to the year 2002 on the basis of an independent scientific report. Given that the report concerned does not appear to contain any scientific data which would justify such a proposal, can the Commission say on what scientific basis it has arrived at the above figure of 40%?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

As a matter of clarification, the Commission has not proposed such a reduction in the catch of sardines on the Portuguese coast. The proposal has been, more precisely, to set an overall, medium-term, objective of reduction of fishing capacity by 40% in the period 1997-2002 by fleets exploiting sardine on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian peninsula. The consequences for the catch of sardines in the Portuguese area will depend mostly on the precise details of capacity reduction, to be discussed with the Portuguese authorities, and on the abundance of the stock.

The Commission's proposal is based on the advice provided by the advisory committee for fishery management (ACFM), and on the report of a group of independent experts, commonly referred to as 'Lassen report', which was presented to the Parliament on 15 May 1996. These experts, who include Portuguese scientists, have produced their report on the basis of the most recent assessments carried out by the International council for the exploration of the sea, which indicate that the stock of sardine is outside safe biological limits. The spawning stock biomass in 1995 is the lowest on record, and since 1992 all year classes appear to be low.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: European finance given for mental health

Does the Commission have a record of how many ECT and/or lobotomy operations were carried out within the Member States during the last ten years?

Does the Commission have a record of how many deaths occurred in psychiatric/mental health institutions over the last ten years along with the cause of death?

Does the Commission have any intention to propose a European Directive that would protect the rights of people under psychiatric care?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)

The Commission does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.

As the responsibility for health care lies with Member States, the Commission has no intention to propose legislation in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2086/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Gibraltar

Will the Commission confirm that Gibraltar is part of the European Union?

Will they inform the European Ombudsman who, in his Annual Report for 1995, listed complaints from Gibraltar as being from outside the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1996)

Under Articles 227(4) of the EC Treaty and 79(1) of the Euratom Treaty, the provisions of the treaties apply to Gibraltar as European territory for which a Member States is responsible for external relations. However, this situation does not extend to all acts of secondary Community legislation. For example, under Article 28 of the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities, acts taken by the institutions relating to the common agricultural policy and the harmonization of the laws of the Member States on turnover tax are not applicable to Gibraltar, unless the Council, acting unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission, decides otherwise.

The Ombudsman's report is addressed to Parliament. It is suggested that the Honourable Member contact the Ombudsman direct on matters concerning the report's contents.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1685/96 by Francis Decourrière (PPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Structural funds and financial engineering

The various Structural Fund single programming documents relating to Objectives 1 and 2 refer specifically to support for financial services for SMEs.

One example is the Objective 1 DOCUP for the districts of Avesnes/Helpe, Douai and Valenciennes, which provides, in Priority 1, Subpriority 1, Measure 2, Submeasure 2, for ERDF funds to be used to:

- guarantee bank loans for SMEs and

- provide plentiful start-up capital for the development of risk capital.

These measures to support the setting up or expansion of SMEs have a considerable leverage effect on job creation.

As objections have been raised since these DOCUPs were adopted, a joint working party on financial engineering has been set up by Directorate-General XVI and Directorate-General XX.

This working party is continually postponing delivering its conclusions, which is affecting a large number of projects under both Objective 1 and Objective 2.

Can the Commission say what measures it intends to take to effect the implementation of these measures, which are so important to the economic future of these regions?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)

The Structural Fund regulations stipulate that these can be used to support financial engineering measures, such as acquisitions of holdings and the provision of guarantees, without however laying down detailed provisions for the implementation of such measures.

In view of the growing number of relevant proposals from the Member States, the Commission departments saw it fit to establish guidelines to ensure the viability and transparency of such measures, as well as proper use of Community funds, while also including appropriate handing-over arrangements. On 26 July 1995 the Commission took note of the general principles and of the detailed guidelines for use by its departments in dealing with funding proposals for risk capital within the framework of the Structural Funds.

Since then, all financial engineering measures envisaged by the Member States in the programming documents have been assessed by the Commission using the guidelines. The Commission also transmitted the guidelines to the Member States for information as part of the discussions that it is holding with them with the aim of achieving proper and effective management of the Community budget (SEM 2000 exercise).

With regard to the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, five financial engineering projects are currently being examined by the Commission departments working with the projects' sponsors. The establishment of an agreement for each one of the projects, in conformity with the above-mentioned Commission guidelines, should make it possible for the difficulties encountered in their implementation to be overcome.

It would seem, however, that implementation of certain projects has been suspended pending the publication of an interministerial circular currently being drafted by the French authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/96 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) and Giles Chichester (PPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Smart card standards

Is the Commission aware of the press article 'Delay on the Cards' (Computer Weekly, 25 April 1996)?

Does it agree with the comments in that article on the weakness of the current standards system whereby cards may abide by the same standard but, because of the use of different options within a standard, be incompatible at the point of transaction?

What steps, if any, are planned to help European users (e.g. retailers, hotels, restaurants, transport and travel organizations and government agencies) to secure the benefits of using common smart card based transaction systems no later than their counterparts in North America?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1996)

The Commission is aware of the press article 'Delay on the cards' (Computer Weekly, 25 April 1996). The issues raised in the article are studied under the issue of 'interoperability', which is considered by the Commission to be a crucial element in the construction of a single market for payment systems. In this field, a distinction should be made between 'technical' and 'commercial' interoperability.

The first kind of interoperability mainly refers to technical standards. In this area, the current work, which is carried out through the European standardisation organisations, is especially devoted to defining standards which are compatible and, in the same time, achieve a high degree of safety. In particular, encouraged by the Commission, the three main European credit sector associations (ECSAs) ((Members of ECSAs are: the Banking Federation of the European Union, the European Savings Banks Group and the European Association of Co-operative Banks. )) established, in 1993, a European committee for banking standards (ECBS). One of ECBS's assignments is further standardisation in the area of plastic cards and related devices, concerning both traditional credit and debt cards systems and pre-paid instruments (electronic purses). Progress in both areas is significant and will contribute to improving the situation for European commercial users, as well as banks and consumers.

The second kind of interoperability refers to commercial agreements between operators, which may be required in order to open systems to each other on a basis of reciprocity and to determine the conditions for their exploitation. The Commission believes that market forces operate freely and fully, and that all these agreements should respect the Community competition rules, in particular Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, it being understood that interoperability should contribute to the technical and economic progress which the Honourable Member wishes to see achieved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Development of the Community's railways

Article 15 of Directive 91/440/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p.25.)) on the development of the Community's railways provides that Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 1 January 1993.

Bearing in mind that, with a view to the development of the Community's railways, the Directive provides that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that railway undertakings have independent status as regards management, administration and internal control over administrative, economic and accounting matters, will the Commission say:

1. What measures Greece has taken at national level to develop Greek railways?

2. Whether Greece has notified it of these measures and, if so, when?

3. What measures it intends to take if it finds that the relevant Greek authorities have not taken adequate action to implement this Directive?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

Greece has not yet notified national implementing measures for Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways. As Member States had to implement the directive by 1 January 1993, the Commission has begun proceedings against Greece under Article 169 of the EC Treaty. In November 1995, it delivered a reasoned opinion to Greece. The Commission is presently in contact with the Greek authorities about their plans to implement the directive. Depending on the result of these contacts, it will decide whether or not to bring the case before the Court of justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/96 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Spouse's portion of the married couple's pension in the UK

Can the Commission please comment on the fact that under present UK legislation, under the UK pension scheme a person is required to pay contributions towards their pension from which they may benefit at the age of 60 or 65 depending on when they may draw a pension. However, if married, upon one spouse reaching the appropriate retirement age the couple is only entitled to a married couple's pension, this being calculated on the contributions of the spouse who has most contributions. This means that the other spouse's contributions are lost and a married couple receives less than two individuals with the same contributions.

Considering that the vast majority of spouses who lose these contributions are women, owing to the traditional structure of the labour market, is this not against EU law in terms of equal treatment of mean and women under social security systems? Effectively, men are entitled to their pension rights as their contributions are normally used to calculate a couple's pension and women are denied their pension rights as these are usually not taken into account as the structure of the labour market has traditionally discriminated against women working.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

It is true to say that under the statutory scheme in force in the United Kingdom a married couple in receipt of a married couple's old age pension will receive less than two unmarried people having paid the same contributions.

However, the Community legislation in force in the area of statutory social security schemes, namely Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ((OJ L 6, 10.1.1979. )), does not impinge on the right of Member States to decide on the organisation of their systems, and in particular does not require them to split a married couple's pension into separate components or to treat a married couple as if they were not married.

Consequently, the Commission does not take the view that the situation as described by the Honourable Member infringes Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2457/96 by Pierre Moscovici (PSE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: Condition of access by European nationals to paid vocational training courses in another Member State

What are the legal provisions governing access by EU citizens to vocational training courses in a Member State other than that of which they have nationality?

Do conditions of access vary according to whether the course is paid or not?

What residence permit may be required, notably in France, for access to a paid course?

Can a Member State refuse a European citizen access to a course where the remuneration is financed by a public body?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

There is no specific Community legislation governing access of Union citizens to vocational training courses in Member States other than their own. However, several Community programmes are aimed at encouraging and facilitating the mobility of (inter alia) trainees, such as the Leonard da Vinci Programme or the Training and Mobility of Researchers Programme.

As regards the right of residence, trainees may face different situations. If the trainee's activity is a real and effective one and if he is being paid for it the trainee may exercise his rights as a Community employee. If this is not the case, however, he may - depending on the circumstances - exercise his rights as a student, or as a beneficiary or supplier of services, or simply as a national of a Member State with sufficient resources to meet the requirements of Directive 90/364/EEC on the right of residence ((OJ L 180, 13.7.1990. )).

The conditions for access of European citizens to courses provided in the Member States are subject to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. Hence a Member State cannot refuse a European citizen access to a training course simply because this course is financed by a public body. The only exception is when the training course gives direct access to employment in the public service within the meaning of Article 48(4) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1864/96 by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: VAT payments from travel agencies

The UK High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, has decided to ask the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Treaty.

Can the Commission tell me whether it has already submitted the relevant report to the Advocate General in case C-260/95, Commissioners of Customs and Excise/DFDS A/S? If so, what approach does the report take and what guidelines does it contain?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The Commission is aware of the case cited by the Honourable Member, and, as is its normal practice, has submitted observations to the Court of Justice on the legal points in issue.

The matter before the Court is therefore sub judice, and it would be incorrect of the Commission to discuss its own contribution or those of other parties to the litigation before final judgement in the case.

For general information on the progress of the case, the Honourable Member should contact the Court of Justice direct.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1865/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Judgment against the firm Ambrosio of San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Naples, which exports cubes of candied melon

On 4 June this year the French firm Union-Ciprial of Apt successfully brought a case at the court of first instance in Avignon against the firm Ambrosio srl of San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Naples, and the French importer of the cubes of melon produced in three colours by that firm, on the grounds that the product contained excessive quantities of beta sisterol, a substance which is also found in turnips. The court in Avignon and hence the Public Prosecutor did not take due account of the veracity of the health documentation issued by the Italian local health authorities, assuming the latter to be corrupt and controlled by the Mafia. Nor did they take due account of the marketing certificates issued for the product and the licence for its sale. Does the Commission not consider that this judgment showing discrimination against official documents issued in a Member State constitutes a violation of correct administrative relations within the European Union and hence creates a serious restriction on freedom of competition and the free movement of goods within the European Community?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The Commission does not possess sufficient information on the case described by the Honourable Member for it to take a decision as to whether the principle of free movement of goods has been breached.

Without wishing to prejudge the existence of a violation of that principle in the case at issue, the Commission would stress that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, Articles 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty have a direct effect and may be relied on by individuals before national courts in Member States.

In addition to the means of redress available under national law, individuals who consider that their interests have been harmed by a state measure that conflicts with Community law may lodge a complaint with the Commission, making available the factual and legal particulars in their possession.

If particulars were brought to its attention that indicated the existence of a violation of Community law, the Commission would be certain to take the necessary steps.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2019/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Commission Decision of 21 December 1988 - Greek Government aid to the film industry

With reference to Commission Decision 89/441/EEC ((OJ L 208, 20 July 1989, p. 38. )) of 21 December 1988 on aid granted by the Greek Government to the film industry:

1. Can the European Commission inform me of the action taken by Greece subsequent to that decision?

2. Can it inform me of the number of feature-length films produced in Greece since 1988?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

1. The Greek law n° 1597 of 12 May 1986 created an aid scheme for the Greek film industry. The Commission's negative decision on this scheme found that the requirement of the law that all the different categories of people involved in the production of a film (author, director, technicians) must have Greek nationality was discriminatory and was not necessary to give a film its cultural identity.

The Commission decision described the financing and use of the aid. The financing comes from a tax on film projection in Greek cinemas. At the time of the decision the annual estimated revenue of this tax was approximately 3.6 to 3.9 MECU.

The revenue from the tax is used to stimulate the production of Greek films and also to encourage the showing of Greek films in cinemas in Greece. The production subsidy is only given for Greek films. Some of the elements were found by the Commission to discriminate against nationals of other Member States. This was especially the case in regard to the following requirements:

- for the categories of technicians, actors and performing musicians, three quarters must be Greek,

- all the assisting labour force must be Greek and insured at the institute of social security or an other organisation of public insurance.

The aid for cinema operators, which is a percentage of the levied taxes, was related to the showing of Greek films. Cinema operators therefore had an incentive to show Greek films.

In July 1990 the Greek authorities notified new modifications to the law after the Commission assessed that earlier changes were insufficient. For the purposes of the production subsidy, the modifications classified nationals of any other Member States as eligible on the same basis as Greek nationals. As regards the aid for cinema operators, the law now stipulates that the operators receive tax reimbursement for all films shown.

2. The Commission has no information available on the number of long films which have been produced in Greece since 1988.