ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3537/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Human rights situation in Colombia and the life of Fr Brendan Forde

I received a written response from Commissioner Patten's office on 19 September regarding the situation in Colombia and the safety of Fr Brendan Forde in his village of La Union.

In that letter it was stated that Mr Patten was seeking assurances from his Colombian counterparts on the abuses of human rights in the area.

Would the Commission please outline what explanations and assurances it has received from its Colombian counterparts regarding this issue?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3537/00 and E-3538/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Immediately after the massacre in La Unión took place the Union called on the Colombian Government to investigate the exact circumstances of this crime. The Colombian Government established a commission of inquiry on the massacre, consisting of officials from the Public Prosecutor's, the Attorney General's and the Ombudsman's Office. They have carried out two investigation missions, the last at the beginning of November, although they have not issued their report yet. International pressure should certainly be maintained in order to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

The Union has consistently stressed the importance of making progress on human rights issues. The most recent opportunity took place on 24 October 2000 in Bogota, when Colombia convened an international meeting on support for the peace process. The Commission's perception is that there is increasing willingness from the Colombian authorities to respond to these claims. First steps have been taken by the government (the lay-off of army officers involved in human rights violations, trial of military personnel before civilian courts). But there is obviously still a long way to go and the international community should continue its active human-rights policy.

The Commission is aware of the detainee situation of the peace community of La Unión/Urabá, where Father Forde is working. Nevertheless, the Commission is actively supporting the peace communities through specific actions carried out by the non-governmental organisations to meet their needs for humanitarian aid. It also supports these communities through active participation in the Mesa por la paz en Urabá (a platform for peace consisting of different national and international entities) which monitors the human rights situation in the area of the peace communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Porpoise by-catches

It appears from its answer of 16 October 2000 to my Question E-2584/00(1) that In general, very few facts on population dynamics and by-catch issues [influence?] on the harbour porpoise are known to the Commission.

Will the Commission then review the Ascobans assessment of the situation of porpoises in the North Sea and the Baltic respectively?

Will the Commission also describe its cooperation with Ascobans and indicate whether it sits in as an observer at the meetings of the Ascobans Advisory Committee?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The lack of information about this species is a regrettable situation that the Commission shares with the scientific community. Therefore, it is not surprising that even highly specialised bodies such the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans), continue to call for new researches on the subject.

The Commission welcomes all the efforts to maintain at a favourable status of conservation the species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, as it is the case for all cetaceans the Commission regularly meets regional environmental organisations to exchange views and information. A meeting with representatives of Ascobans was scheduled on 8 December 2000 but, due to unforeseen circumstances, it has had to be postponed.

As for the participation at Ascobans' work, the Community is what the agreement's text calls regional economic integration organisation and therefore is qualified to send observers to the meetings.

Until now, the Community has signed up the Final Act of the meeting at which the text of the Agreement was adopted and the Agreement itself. However, the latter is not yet ratified. Taking into account the current workload of the Commission and its shortage of human resources, the participation at Ascobans meetings is decided on a case by case basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3815/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Pigs Directive

Is the Council aware that the Pigs Directive was supposed to be implemented from 1991 but that, to date, only the United Kingdom and Sweden have implemented its provisions for the welfare of pigs, while Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands plan to do so?

When will non-complying Member States bring forward appropriate legislation?

Reply

(24 April 2001)

On 19 November 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs confined for the purposes of rearing and fattening.

Under Article 11 of the Directive, Member States must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive not later than 1 January 1994 and must forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Beyond those legislative references, it is not for the Council to monitor the implementation by the Member States of its own acts, such competence having been devolved by the Treaty upon the Commission.

However, it should be pointed out that the Directive to which the Honourable Member refers is in the process of being amended. On 16 January the Commission adopted a communication and an accompanying proposal on the subject of pig welfare.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2797/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Top rate of capital gains tax charged in each country of the European Union

Would the Commission please draw up a table showing the top rate of capital gains tax charged on disposal of shares in publicly quoted companies in each country of the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2795/00, E-2796/00 and E-2797/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The three questions mainly relate to taxation of individuals. There is a great diversity among Member States on the way this taxation is organised. This has to do with the progressivity of the tax scales, the definition of the tax bases, the exemptions (e.g. for some social security benefits), the tax deductions such as family allowances, and special schemes for capital income or real estate. Given the complexity of these issues that are not harmonised at Community level, it is difficult to make comparisons of specific tax provisions in the Member States and to draw conclusions on the tax burden on the basis of the top marginal rate of these taxes.

The Commission is working on an improvement of information on the tax systems in the Member States. As a first step, the national data collected in the Inventory of Taxes levied in the Member States of the European Union(1) have been updated (rates as percentage as of 1 January 1999). The top rates of state tax on personal income with their respective thresholds of income, according to information received from Member States, are listed below. In some countries, regional or local taxes are also levied. These may be quite substantial. The top rate of these regional and local taxes may be higher than the top rate of the state tax.

>TABLE>

The top rates of personal inheritance tax are as follow:

>TABLE>

Furthermore capital gains are usually taxed as personal or corporate income. A few Member States do not levy tax on capital gains at all. There is wide range of tax rates on these revenues.

(1) Next edition 2000 (situation on 1.1.1999) will be published in the near future by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3434/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Protection of Italian journalists in the Middle East freedom of the press

Following the interview given by the Italian Prime Minister, Massimo D'Alema, in which he criticised the Jewish community in Israel, further statements by the RAI correspondent in Jerusalem against the activities of the free press in the Middle East are a source of deep concern. The letter sent by the RAI journalist, Riccardo Cristiano, to the Palestinian authorities' semi-official daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida, reporting that the pictures of the lynching of the two Israeli soldiers were not shown by Italian State television represents a serious attack on the freedom of those sections of the press which are not anti-Israeli.

The statements by a leader of Italy's main governing party and the attitude shown by the Italian State television correspondent simply contribute to fuelling anti-Semitic feeling in the European Union.

What action does the Council intend to take to help guarantee journalists' freedom of activity, to protect their independence from political parties and to prevent the rise of hatred against Jews living in Europe?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. The Council would draw the Honourable Members' attention to the reply given to Written Question E-3089/00 concerning an attack on a Jewish teacher by a group of neo-Nazi skinheads.

2. As regards equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, on 29 June 2000 the Council adopted a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(1).

A proposal for a Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and a proposal for a Decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006) are being examined by the Council and will shortly be adopted.

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Replacement afforestation under LIFE projects

Bogs, marsh areas, dry grasslands and sandy grasslands are among the most endangered habitats in our rural landscape. They are the last refuges of many endangered species of plants and animals. The extent of these habitats has decreased dramatically in recent decades because of increasingly intensive land use, but also because of inadequate maintenance. The fact that natural tree cover (Austrian Forestry Law, section 4(1)) is to be treated legally as woodland once cover extends to 50 % of the area, leads to considerable conflict with nature conservation interests. For example, if woody plants start encroaching on bogs, marsh areas, dry grasslands and sandy grasslands and reach this extent of cover, they can be removed only when an appropriate clearance authorisation has been obtained, i.e. replacement afforestation could be required. As nature conservation has no equivalent legal instruments at its disposal there is a constant decline in these habitats.

Under a LIFE nature project of the office of the Lower Austria regional government, with 60 % EU financing, sandy habitats are to be enhanced. To enable particularly valuable habitats to be permanently returned to sandy grassland small-scale clearances (about 10-12 hectares) are planned in various locations under this project.

Can replacement afforestation required by the authorities be co-financed under LIFE projects via the rural development programme (Regulation (EC) 1257/1999)(1)?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Article 38.1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999, on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations lays dow that payments may not be made in respect of the same measure under both this Regulation and another Community support scheme.

Substitution afforestation is a legal obligation deriving directly from the conservation measure supported by the Life-Programme, it is not possible to cofinance this action by the Austrian rural development programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3730/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Underground LPG tanks

The LPG sector in Italy has a national turnover of more than ITL 6 000 billion and employs approximately 5 000 people.

Between 1996 and 2000 an estimated 150 000 epoxy-coated underground LPG tanks with cathodic protection were produced in Italy and 110 000 in France; this type of LPG tank is approved and used on a regular basis in other EU Member States such as Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Article 2 of Abruzzo Regional Law No 107 of 22 September 2000 stipulates that underground LPG tanks must be protected by bitumen cement casings or must be double-walled, so as to contain any leaks and enable the space between the inner and outer walls to be inspected. That technical requirement would appear to cover specific types of construction only, thus excluding epoxy-coated tanks with cathodic protection.

The new European directive concerning pressure equipment (97/23/EC)(1) draws attention to the fact that disparities in the contents of the relevant laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in the Member States and in the certification and inspection procedures laid down by national law may well constitute barriers to the free movement of the relevant products within the Community.

Does the Commission consider that the above law hampers the freedom of movement of such products and leads to unjustified disparities in treatment between products which have been approved in accordance with the relevant national provisions? If it does, what does it intend to do about this situation?

(1) OJ L 181, 9.7.1997, p. 1.

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The matter to which the honourable Member refers has been the subject of a number of complaints that have recently been lodged with the Commission. An inquiry concerning the Member State in question is currently under way, with the aim of securing all the necessary information on the matter. The Commission will not hesitate, if need be, to take suitable measures in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 266 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3824/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: The failure of certain states to implement the Hague Convention

Would the Commission please assure Parliament that it will investigate as a matter of urgency evidence that states such as Monaco have failed to implement the spirit and aim of the Hague Convention, with specific reference to cases of parental access to children where one parent is a resident in one of these states and the other a citizen of a Member States, and will it agree to provide Parliament with regular progress reports on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the control of the implementation of the Hague Convention falls outside its competencies.

The Hague Convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children of 19 October 1996, is no instrument of the Community but an international Convention. The Commission has therefore no competence to control its implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3654/00

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Distinction between public and commercial radio stations in planning frequencies

The Dutch Telecommunications Act is structured in such a way that a decision has to be taken on the frequency requirements for public broadcasting before any frequencies can be allocated to commercial broadcasters. To achieve an efficient replanning of the FM band the Dutch government has arranged for zero-base research to be carried out with a view to increasing the frequencies of commercial broadcasting.

On the basis of the results of this research it has been decided to make available FM frequencies for one additional commercial station and to make a considerable increase in the listening range of almost all frequency packages to more than 70 %. The frequency range for public broadcasting (national, regional and local) has priority and is planned on conventional lines which do not result in additional frequency requirements for public broadcasting.

For commercial broadcasting planning involves new methods which considerably increase the frequency range.

Can the Commission look into whether the distinction that is made between public and commercial broadcasting for planning frequency range can have the effect of distorting competition in the commercial market?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3653/00, E-3654/00 and E-3655/00 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

As decided by the Court of Justice, public television broadcasting falls within the terms of the EC Treaty and the common market principles, including the rules on competition and state aid. In particular, Article 87(1) (ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty could apply to public radio broadcasting if all the conditions mentioned therein are met. A State aid may nevertheless be found compatible with the EC Treaty provisions. Furthermore, Article 86(2) (ex-Article 90) of the EC Treaty provides that a State aid can be declared compatible when it is necessary for the realisation of a service of general economic interest.

The importance of public service broadcasting is stated in the Protocol on public service broadcasting, introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission has to take into account this interpretative Protocol. According to the Protocol it is the competence of Member States to define the public service and to provide for the funding for this public service, insofar as the funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that would be contrary to the common interest.

The Commission is not able to give a precise opinion at this stage on the specific questions of the Honourable Member but will in due time and in the light of the above assess all implications of the requirements of the EC Treaty for the broadcasting sector. As far as the State aid aspect is concernend, the Commission plans to clarify its position in this context in a communication in the course of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4057/00

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Agriculture in Capaccio-Paestum

Capaccio-Paestum is an area in the gulf of Salerno subject to archaeological restrictions because of its great archaeological riches (Doric temples, a necropolis etc.). The River Sele and other waterways make it a particularly fertile area.

Legislation rightly ensures that this immeasurably valuable heritage is protected, but does not take into consideration the age-old activities of farmers in the area (rearing buffalo, growing vegetables, etc.).

Will the Commission therefore take action to ensure that the local authorities, while continuing to ensure that the archaeological and landscape heritage is protected, adopt all measures necessary to allow the farmers concerned to receive special authorisation to improve their holdings and to gain access to concessions relating to social security contributions, tax and financing, as well as financial support from the European Union?

In short, does the Commission intend to ensure that all those concerned benefit from equal opportunities in comparison with other farmers who do not live in areas subject to constraints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission considers that compliance with the legislation in force on protecting the archaeological heritage, the landscape and the environment is a prerequisite for granting any public assistance in the agricultural sector, whether it be purely national assistance or assistance part-financed at Community level under the Structural Funds or the Rural Development Plan for the region concerned.

Taking action to ensure that the local authorities give farmers access to special permits for improving their holdings and to concessions in the field of social security contributions, taxation and national funding is not considered by the Commission to be a task which falls within its powers. If national aid were introduced in this context, the Commission would be responsible for guaranteeing compliance with the State aid rules under Articles 87 to 89 (former Articles 92 to 94) of the EC Treaty.

As regards assistance part-financed by the Community under the programmes referred to above, no provision is made for specific rural development measures confined to this area in the Objective 1 Operational Programme (ROP) for the Campania region for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by the Commission Decision of 8 August 2000.

However, it would be within the powers of the regional authorities implementing this assistance to lay down specific conditions aimed at encouraging application of the measures provided for in the ROP in the area subject to the abovementioned constraints, provided that these conditions complied with the Community rules on the Structural Funds and rural development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/00

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Multiregional programmes

What percentage of the budget allocation for Spain under the Structural Funds is taken up by multiregional programmes, the management of which is the direct responsibility of central government?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Community support framework (CSF) for the Spanish regions eligible under Objective 1 during the 2000-2006 programming period, which was approved by the Commission on 18 October 2000, specifies the overall funding to be allocated to these regions. An indicative breakdown is to be made jointly by the regional and central government authorities.

The nature of the assistance will determine the type of management, i.e. shared in the case of integrated programmes and conducted by central government in the case of multi-regional programmes. These latter programmes will account for 27,58 % of the resources available, i.e. 10 810,2 million out of a total of 39 186 million for the CSF as a whole (leaving aside Cantabria, which is to receive transitional assistance).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Remuneration of the experts assessing the situation in Austria.



Official Journal 163 E , 06/06/2001 P. 0083 - 0083



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council (25 October 2000) Subject: Remuneration of the experts assessing the situation in Austria A group of three experts was set up by one of the EU institutions to assess the possibility of lifting the sanctions against Austria. The group reported that it would indeed be possible to lift the sanctions. Which institution remunerated the experts, and how much did they receive? Reply (12 February 2001) The Council was not involved in setting up this group nor in its functioning; it has never taken a position on the matter raised by the Honourable Member nor committed any appropriations allocated to it in the Community budget for the expenditure in question.