ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Difference of opinion between courts of EU Member States

A Greek man and a Danish woman married in Greece and had a child who has Greek nationality. The marriage was subsequently dissolved by common consent by a divorce issued by a Danish court, and custody was awarded to the mother, without any arrangements being made for access rights for the father. A Greek court later laid down arrangements governing access rights which were, however, rejected by the Danish court, so that the child has no access to the father.

Will the Commission say:

1. Which court is competent to judge which parent should have custody of the child and lay down rules governing the conditions of direct access to the other parent?

2. If a judgment has already been handed down on custody and access rights which fails to satisfy one of the parents, what procedure can be used to review the judgment?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

The Commission is not competent to answer the two questions raised by the Honourable Member.

However, on 28 May 1998, on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, the Council drew up the convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters (1). Its aim is to settle problems of the type raised by the Honourable Member, and it is currently in the process of ratification by the Member States pursuant to Article 47.

(1) OJ C 221, 16.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2863/98

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: EU rules on animal registers

In Västerbotten (northern Sweden) the regional agricultural authority, the country administration, has refused to recognise a farmer's cattle registration book. This means that the farmers will not be regarded as entitled to EU aid, which will jeopardise their finances and livelihood. The farmer in question correctly entered all the required details, but the register was by an oversight entered in a different book. The only difference is in the colour of the cover and the layout of the pages.

The regional authorities have referred to EU legislation, in this case Council Regulation 820/97(1) and Directive 92/102/EEC(2). Perusal of these texts does however reveal little to support the action by the authorities. For example, the Regulation expressly states that "it is essential not to impose excessive demands on the producer in terms of administrative formalities", and that "Any sanctions imposed by the Member State shall be proportionate to the gravity of the breach." In this case the decision is likely to push the farmers into bankruptcy.

Does the Commission believe that the EU legislation on this matter requires the authorities to take this course of action?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

Council Regulation (EC) 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products(3) provides for the holding register in relation to the identification of bovine animals and (in Article 7,4 ) stipulates that: "The register shall be in a format approved by the competent authority in manual or computerised form, and be available at all times to the competent authority, upon request, for a minimum period to be determined by the competent authority but which may not be less than three years." Therefore, it is within the competence of the Member State to decide the format of the holding register.

Similarly, Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals(4) does not provide for the format of the holding register.

However, Community law does provide for the data which must be recorded in the holding register (see Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) 2629/97 of 29 December 1997 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 820/97 as regards eartags, holding registers and passports in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals(5)).

As the format of the holding register is defined by the national authorities, the Commission considers that sanctions for non respect of the format are also a matter for the law of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.

(3) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.

(4) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(5) OJ L 354, 30.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3535/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council

(25 November 1998)

Subject: The Council's assessment of legal base of proposals

Since the entry into force of the Single European Act, on how many occasions has the Council changed the legal base proposed by the Commission?

On how many of these occasions did the proposal to change the legal base originate in the Council's own legal service and on how many occasions did the proposal come from one or more of the members of the Council?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

The examination by the Council of the legal basis for a Commission proposal is an integral part of the examination of the proposal as a whole.

It sometimes happens that the Council considers that the legal basis proposed by the Commission is not correct and decides to change it. In such cases, because the legal basis is an essential part of an act, the Council re-consults the European Parliament. When discussing the legal basis for a proposed act the Council very often asks its Legal Service for its opinion.

The Council does not have the data requested by the Honourable Member: to keep such statistics would necessitate numbers of staff which it does not currently have.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Subsidy to the wine industry

In view of the recent announcement that the Commission is considering a new subsidy to assist the wine industry, could the Commission list all the subsidies which the wine industry could possibly receive?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Community aid for investment in the wine industry has been granted up until now under the only instrument in force on this subject, i.e. Council Regulation (EC) 951/97 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products(1).

This structural scheme has to form part of a multiannual programme presented by the Member State in question and approved by Commission decision. In addition, the investment projects eligible for public subsidy must comply with Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products(2).

Implementation of these agro-industrial programmes in the current programming period under the Structural Funds (1994-99) in the wine sector, by Member State, is set out below (in million ecu):

>TABLE>

Under the Agenda 2000 proposals(3), this type of aid is to be covered by the new Regulation on rural development, as proposed by the Commission on 18 March 1998(4).

In order to provide a complete overview of the wine sector, the Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat a table setting out all Community expenditure under the common organisation of the market in wine with figures for 1989-98, as well as the financial statement attached to the recent reform proposal for the wine market organisation and relating to 2001-05.

The proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the market in wine(5) does provide for more spending than the average expenditure over the last few wine years. This increase is due mainly to the introduction of a scheme for the conversion of vineyards, to be financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section under the market organisation.

Once the adjustment of vineyards to the new market conditions has taken place, it is clear that, over time, expenditure will be favourably influenced.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

(2) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994.

(3) COM(97) 2000 final.

(4) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.

(5) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3189/98

by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Humanitarian aid to the Kurdish population of Iraqi Kurdistan

Would the Commission give details of the different forms of EU aid supplied to the Kurdish population of Iraqi Kurdistan on a yearly basis since the establishment of the safe havens and show how this compares with aid provided by other donors?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Since 1991, the Community has been the major supplier of humanitarian aid to Iraq to the sum of ECU 240 million. The humanitarian response has been aimed at all vulnerable groups.

In 1991, before the creation of the Commission's European Community humanitarian office (ECHO), an allocation of ECU 111,5 million was made for Iraq (refugees and displaced people ECU 94,0 million; conflict in Iraq ECU 5,0 million; Gulf war ECU 12,5 million). Since 1992 the overall ECHO contributions to Iraq have been ECU 116,17 million (ECU 87,03 million for the north and ECU 29,14 million for the centre and south). A further ECU 13 million have been almost entirely allocated to the north.

The main source of humanitarian aid is the oil-for-food programme, based on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution No 986/1995, allowing for the sale of oil to a value of 2 000 million US dollars (USD) for a 180 day period. Of this sum USD 1 320 million are mobilised for humanitarian aid, USD 260 million for Northern Iraq (13 %) and USD 1 060 million for the centre and the south (53 %). The remaining USD 780 million pays for the United Nations operation in Iraq and Gulf War reparations (34 %). The first proceeds of oil sales were received on 15 January 1997 into the United Nations Iraq escrow account. As of 3 June 1998 under the new UNSC resolution No 1153, the amount of oil allowed to be sold was increased to USD 5 260 million.

With an allocation of USD 5 256 million the oil-for-food deal provides aid worth USD 455 per capita per annum in the north (population 3 million) and USD 293 in the centre and south (population 19 million).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2561/98

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Subject: Arms to Indonesia

Is the Commission aware that over the last year bombs, tanks, combat aircraft and machine guns have continued to be exported to Indonesia?

In the light of recent events in East Timor, what steps will the Commission take to discourage the export of weapons to Indonesia?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission has no direct information nor responsibility concerning arms exports. It has taken note with satisfaction that most of the Member States, notably on the basis of the newly adopted code of conduct on arms exports, have announced a restrictive military equipment licensing policy for exports to Indonesia.

The Commission intends to contribute in the appropriate fora, to encourage Member States to implement rigorously the principles governing arms exports agreed in the code of conduct.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Mission expenses for EU officials

Press reports suggest that there are plans to increase mission expenses for EU officials by up to 30 %.

1. Are there really any such plans?

2. What is the justification for this increase?

3. What form will the increase actually take?

4. What additional charge to the EU budget is likely to result from this?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 1999)

If it is to annual travel expenses that the Honourable Member refers, the Commission is not planning any increase in the reimbursement of travel expenses for Community officials. The details relating to reimbursements have been sent to the Honourable Member personally and to Parliament's Secretariat. Even if no increase is planned, the total amount intended to cover the costs will be slightly higher in 1998 (estimated ECU 14,3 million) than in 1997 (ECU 13,0 million) owing to the increase in rail fares and recruitments from places of origin which are more remote from officials' place of work than in the past (enlargement recruitment).

If it is to officials' mission expenses that the Honourable Member refers, Article 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations lays down that the daily subsistence allowance for officials on mission may be altered by the Council acting on a proposal from the Commission by a qualified majority. The daily subsistence allowance for officials and other servants of the European Communities on mission was last altered by the Council seven years ago on 22 July 1991. The proposal presented on 17 July 1998(1) provides for an increase in mission expenses to keep up with the rise in hotel and restaurant prices since 1991. The amounts proposed are lower than those applied by national authorities and other international organisations. The 1999 preliminary draft budget (PDB) already makes provision for this increase for all the institutions (except Parliament, which, by virtue of a decision taken by its Bureau, already applies allowances equivalent to or above those proposed). More precisely, an appropriation of ECU 8,6 million has been entered in Chapter A 100(2) corresponding to the estimated financial impact of this proposal.

(1) COM(98) 455.

(2) Provisional appropriations for various budget items of Title A7: Decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/98

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Funding for the Monastic Republic of Athos (Greece)

Extensive conservation and restoration work is currently being carried out in the Monastic Republic of Athos in Greece.

1. Is it true that the Monastic Republic of Athos in Greece is in receipt of subsidies from the Community budget?

2. If so, from what programme, what amount is involved and for what purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The monasteries on Mount Athos receive international and Community aid for projects involving, in the main, the conservation and restoration of buildings and cultural heritage.

The sum of ECU 6,1 million is being granted from the European Regional Development Fund under the Environment and Central Macedonia operational programmes of the 1994-99 Community Support Framework for Greece.

In addition, as part of its action to promote the protection, conservation and development of monuments of exceptional importance in Europe, the Commission granted the monasteries of Mount Athos ECU 300 000 in 1995, ECU 350 000 in 1996 and ECU 350 000 in 1997.

Another source of financial assistance is the EEA Financial Mechanism, which since it was set up has committed more than ECU 16 million for projects on Mount Athos at the request of the Greek authorities. Decisions allocating Financial Mechanism funds are made by the Financial Mechanism Committee. The Commission takes part in its meetings and projects are assessed by the European Investment Bank before acceptance. The Bank also monitors fulfilment of the contractual obligations for projects accepted.

The Commission would point out that the above aids are not granted to the Holy Community of Mount Athos but to the monasteries, each making their individual applications to the relevant authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3507/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Community Statistical Programme

With reference to the proposal for a Council decision on the Community Statistical Programme (1998-2002) (COM(97) 735 final - 98/0012 CNS and CES 800/98-98/0012 CNS), although the proposal for a Council decision is approved and the choices made by the Commission in setting priorities are welcomed in view of the inadequacy of the budget heading allocated to Eurostat.

Can the Commission ensure that economic and social cohesion is added to the three priorities laid down in Article 2 of this proposal for a decision?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The final opinion of the Parliament, delivered in the plenary session of 9 October 1998 and transmitted to Commission and Council, did not propose any amendment along the lines suggested by the Honourable Member. However, in detailed discussion of the Parliament opinion in the Council working group a modification was proposed to add economic and social cohesion to the list of policies to which particular attention will be accorded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3410/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Discrimination between citizens in the province of Bolzano

The Autonomous Province of Bolzano is currently discussing Provincial law No 131/97 on the rules governing subsidised public housing in the province, Article 4 of which specifies that persons living abroad after having been resident in the province for at least five years (and their spouses, provided they are not separated) who intend to take up residence in the province again shall be treated, for the purposes of that law, on the same footing as persons resident in the province. This article, by according favourable treatment to persons who have lived abroad, discriminates against resident citizens who have been obliged, for similar reasons, to leave the province and take up residence in another region of Italy. In the case of the former, on their return to the province of Bolzano they are recognised as having acquired the same rights as resident citizens, with whom they are equated, while in the case of the latter they are denied those rights.

Although this provision appears to apply to the whole population of Alto Adige regardless of the linguistic group to which they belong (Italian, German or Ladin), it is obvious that the Italian-language community is most likely to be adversely affected by it, as it is they who are obliged to move to other Italian cities to attend university (in which case they have to take up residence in the town in question) or as a condition of their employment (in the case of public sector employees, members of the armed forces and others). However, if such persons take up residence in another Italian city for as much as one day, they lose their right to apply for municipal housing for the next five years.

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state whether it regards the relevant article of Provincial law No 131/97 as introducing discrimination between European citizens, by not extending the same opportunities to all?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-3040/98(1).

(1) See page 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3439/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Hygiene standards at the Prima Porta cemetery

Clear infringements of health rules and of other proper practices have been observed at the Prima Porta cemetery. These include liquid discharges from corpses (mopped up with the use of newspaper and sawdust) and the lack of a disinfector for the mortuary, in which approximately 200 coffins have been waiting for months to be interred.

In view of the above, could the Commission say:

1. whether, in addition to the infringement of Italian health and hygiene rules, there is any evidence that EU directives or regulations have been contravened? If so, which ones?

2. whether there are any Commission studies or documents on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

1. As far as the protection of workers is concerned, the measures provided by the Community legislation on health and safety at work, such as Council Directives 80/1107/EEC(1), 89/391/EEC(2), 89/654/EEC(3), 89/655/EEC(4)89/656/EEC(5)90/394/EEC(6), 90/679/EEC(7), 98/24/EC(8) are relevant. These lay down minimum requirements under Article 118A of the EC Treaty which are to be applied in the workplace in order to ensure that all the necessary steps have been taken to prevent or adequately control the workers' exposure.

2. There are no Commission studies or documents available on the subject.

(1) OJ L 327, 3.12.1980.

(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(3) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(4) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(5) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(6) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(7) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990.

(8) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3910/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Taxation of used cars imported into Finland

After the European Union, on 4 May 1998, had issued the Finnish Government an official warning concerning the taxation of used cars imported into Finland from other Member States, on 27 November 1998 the Finnish Government submitted to the national parliament a bill seeking to alter, albeit in very minor respects, the taxation of the vehicles in question.

In my view, even after this change Finnish tax legislation as it relates to imported used cars will still be in breach of Article 95 of the Treaty on European Union, the repercussions being so severe that in practice this tax will create inequality between used cars imported from any other Member State and those purchased in Finland. The new bill has hardly changed the situation as I described it in my written question to the Commission dated 11 December 1997.

The key provision of the Finnish law on the taxation of cars can be found in Article 7, to which the Commission's also drew attention. This article has been changed in such a way that the tax abatement for used cars imported into Finland would be, as a general rule, 0,6 % per month of use, as against 0,5 % under the terms of the law currently in force. It is quite clear that such a minor change in no way solves the fundamental problem, which is that imported vehicles which are several years old, which are the most sought-after, will remain out of reach for Finnish consumers.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our closest neighbour in the European Union, Sweden, abolished this form of tax on cars in 1996. As a result, the import of used vehicles has become a realistic option for private individuals in Sweden.

I should like to point out to the Commission once again that the proper functioning of the internal market is hampered by the fact that the Finnish tax legislation on cars, as amended, is complicated and incorporates many technical details which allow the customs authorities far too much leeway to take decisions based on an interpretation of the law.

What measures does the Commission plan to take, in connection with the new Finnish legislation on the taxation of used cars, in order to ensure that it is brought into line with Article 95 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.