ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4102/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Preparation for the EU-Latin America Summit

The Council has welcomed the initiative by the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr José María Aznar, who has proposed that a meeting should be held at the EU-Latin America Summit between the heads of state and government of the EU countries and those of the Latin American countries. The Council has also announced that the Summit will take place in the first half of 1999, when Germany holds the EU presidency.

Has the Commission begun its preparations for such an important meeting? Has it perhaps set up a unit with responsibility for the meeting? Moreover, has it received any proposal from a country on one or other side of the Atlantic, offering to host the Summit?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (5 February 1998)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in this matter. Preparations for the Summit of European, Latin American and Caribbean Heads of State and/or Government are one of the Commission's political priorities for 1998/99.

It is working on them in close collaboration with the Council's subordinate bodies concerned.

The decision has already been taken, moreover, to hold the meeting in Latin America. The Latin Americans have still to reach a final decision on the host city for the Summit.

The Commission must also reassure the Honourable Member that this important issue is given close attention by all European decision-makers at all levels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3843/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: ECJ's decision concerning Sweden's monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol

A few weeks ago the Court of Justice of the European Communities issued a ruling on the monopoly of alcohol sales in Sweden. This case (the Frantzén case) also gave rise to a debate in Sweden's neighbouring country Finland, where the same kind of monopoly exists. The ECJ's judgment was regrettable in itself since the subsidizing of a monopoly sits uncomfortably with the Community's principles of free competition and trade. In Italy there are monopolies on, for example, tobacco, which are subsidized for comparable reasons. Now it seems that in the EU's view a monopoly can be approved on some grounds but not on others. What reasons justify the retention of a monopoly in a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

Legal monopolies which exist in the Member States are not necessarily incompatible with Community law and do not always have to be abolished. However, national monopolies of a commercial character must comply with the rules of the EC Treaty and in particular, the rules which govern the free movement of goods in Articles 30 to 37.

In accordance with the case-law of the Court of justice (Case C-189/95, Franzén, judgment of 23 October 1997) national rules relating to the existence and operation of the monopoly have to be examined under Article 37 of the EC Treaty. This provision requires national monopolies having a commercial character to be adjusted in such a way as to ensure that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States. The organisation and operation of the monopoly must thus be arranged so as to exclude any discrimination between nationals of Member States as regards conditions of supply and outlets, so that trade in goods from other Member States is not put at a disadvantage, in law or in fact, in relation to that in domestic goods and that competition between the economies of the Member States is not distorted.

Moreover, national rules may have a bearing upon the monopoly although they do not, strictly speaking, regulate the functioning of the monopoly. Such rules are considered separable from the operation of the monopoly and are examined with reference to Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The Court of Justice found in the Franzén case that a licensing system applicable to imports of goods which imposes additional costs on goods from other Member States, such as intermediary costs, payment of charges and fees for the grant of a licence, and costs arising from the obligation to maintain storage capacity in the Member State of destination, is an obstacle to import contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty. An obstacle may be considered justified and proportionate in relation to any mandatory requirement accepted by Article 36 of the EC Treaty and the Court's case-law, such as public health. However the Court did not consider these conditions to be fulfilled in the circumstances applicable in the Franzén case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4214/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

Do administrators in the European Commission have any discretion to refuse to promulgate a ruling of the ECJ in a particular case?

If there is no such discretion, what remedy is there for a business or an individual against an administrator who is responsible for obstructing the laid-down procedure? Is there an internal disciplinary procedure? What compensation may be claimed by the business/individual, and from whom?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4213/97 and E-4214/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

As indicated in the joint reply to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-4208/97 to 4211/97 ((OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 72. )), the Commission drew the necessary conclusions from the Elida Gibbs judgment of 24 October 1996 (Case C-317/94), writing to all the Member States and deciding to initiate or continue several proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, including against the Member States referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would point out that, under the Treaty, the Court of Justice is competent to interpret existing Community law and that it is not for the Commission, much less its officials, to ignore its judgments. However, in so far as some Member States, as in the case in point, have difficulty in applying a judgment, the Commission cannot prevent such difficulties being raised in ad hoc committees. This is how this matter came to be discussed in the VAT Committee.

At this point in time, no proposal on the subject mentioned by the Honourable Member is being prepared by the Commission. It goes without saying that, if an initiative were to be taken, those involved in business would be consulted as always, principally by means of the respective opinions of Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee and through regular contacts with those business interests.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4120/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Unregulated dumping of nuclear waste at Dounreay, Scotland

AEA Technology, the British company which runs the Dounreay nuclear complex in Scotland, recently admitted that a massive operation needs to be undertaken to clean up a radioactive dump beside the site. Over 1 000 tonnes of radioactive waste are reported to have been dumped in a shaft burrowed into nearby cliffs.

The dumping appears to have been undertaken in a haphazard and largely uncontrolled way. No comprehensive records were kept of the substances dumped there, and, although dumping began there in 1959, details of the dump did not emerge for a further 20 years. The plant's managers also concealed a 1977 explosion at the shaft, which is believed to have been at least partially responsible for the hundreds of 'hot spots' later detected on surrounding beaches.

Has the Commission made any contact with the British authorities about this dump? If so, can it give details of any such contacts?

Does the Commission plan to monitor and supervise the drafting and implementation of a clean-up programme for the dump? Has the Commission any preferences for how the waste in the dump should be dealt with?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 February 1998)

Representatives of the Commission met with senior members of the United Kingdom atomic energy authority (UKAEA) during the first half of 1997. The subject of the intermediate-level waste shaft was discussed during that meeting. Since then, additional information has been requested from the British authorities concerning the plans for the removal, processing and storage of the wastes from the shaft including assessments of the actual and potential environmental effects of these wastes. As regards hot spots only two such particles have been identified on beaches to which the public has access.

The Commission does not have any specific preferences for how the waste should be dealt with nor does it expect to be involved in the supervision and implementation of a clean-up programme. However, depending on the process selected, a submission may be necessary under the terms of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty and an environmental assessment may be required for any new facility in which to store the waste (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. ))).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0093/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Turkey and antipersonnel mines

In accordance with international agreements and appeals by the European Parliament Greece has decided to support the ban on the use of antipersonnel mines. Turkey, on the other hand, is showing no sign of complying and is keeping the entire area along its border with Greece mined. Furthermore, in an unprecedented act of insensitivity and sadism it is directing towards the mined area hundreds of desperate Kurdish refugees seeking to enter Greece and, from there, the rest of the EU.

What measures will the Commission take with a view to bringing Turkey into line with international agreements, with which Greece has already complied, sacrificing strategic advantages and defence requirements to humanitarian considerations?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

The Commission has been a strong supporter of the Ottawa process and, in dialogue with third countries, has encouraged adherence to the Convention to ban the use of anti-personnel landmines.

The Member States which have signed the Convention are committed to use their best endeavours to ratify it at the earliest opportunity, to take appropriate steps to comply with the objectives of the Convention pending its entry into force, and to promote universal accession.

The Community will also seek to promote, in all appropriate international fora, including the Conference of disarmament, in which Turkey is a participant, all efforts likely to contribute to the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines world-wide as well as contributing to solving the problems already caused by these weapons.

The Commission will continue to play a strong role in these activities, wherever appropriate in accordance with its responsibilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0203/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council (11 February 1998)

Subject: Schengen task force

Recently there have been reports of a 'task force' which will be concerned with measures to improve the Schengen external frontiers. Accordingly, I should like to ask the Council the following questions:

1. What prompted the European Union to set up this task force?

2. Where does the Council feel there are shortcomings in existing checks at external borders?

3. What improvements does the Council expect the new task force to bring about?

4. Does the Council believe that setting up a task force can ensure foolproof checks at land and sea borders?

5. Is the Council of the opinion that the current difficulties are caused solely by problems in national transposition or by shortcomings in the Schengen rules?

6. Does the Council regard the practice of some Member States (detecting illegal immigrants but not ensuring that they subsequently leave the territory of the Union) as running counter to the Union's acquis?

Answer (7 April 1998)

The working party referred to by the Honourable Member (the 'Schengen Task Force') is not a European Union but a Schengen working party. The Council is not competent to reply to the question posed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Community 'Pesca' initiative for Greece

The Community 'Pesca' initiative for Greece comprises four Sub-Programmes and a fifth for technical assistance. As there is a timetable for each of sub-programmes 1 to 4, will the Commission say:

1. what progress has been made with the sub-programmes and what measures have been taken in each sub-programme, and

2. whether there have been any delays in taking up funds and, if so, what the main reasons for the delays are?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

1. Administrative arrangements in Greece for the four main parts of the PESCA programme are now complete. The authorities state that for private investments applications must reach the local fisheries department by 31 March and that the national commitment decisions will be taken before the end of June. The commitment decisions for public investments are in preparation. Once these procedures are completed the programme can actually be implemented.

2. The delay in starting the programme can be imputed largely to lack of the necessary coordination for implementation of a multifund programme requiring the involvement of several public departments. As a result none of the available appropriations has so far been used. The administrative arrangements now made mean that the first payments to recipients under the programme should be made in the second half of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Funds from Item A-3040 to International Youth Organizations

Will the Commission acknowledge that numerous voluntary organizations depend solely on the subsidies offered from Item A-3040 in order to carry out the European dimension of their valued work?

In accepting that such youth organizations represent exceptional value for money, does the Commission agree that the reduction of ECU 200 000 in this year's budget will place many organizations in jeopardy?

As this budget item was created in 1991 to strengthen communication with young people across the nations, will the Commission accept that it is vital to reinstate Item A-3040 in coming years?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The Commission is fully aware of the vital role played by the non-governmental international youth organisations in the Citizens First programme. Their international programmes of activities make a real contribution to the development of a European citizenship.

The Commission also recognises that these international youth activities can only take place if the organisations responsible for them are able to cover some of the operating costs they entail. It is these costs which may be covered partially by subsidies under Item A-3040 (A-3029 in 1998). It is worth noting that, in 1997, subsidies granted under A-3040 amounted, on average, to only 16% of the beneficiaries' overheads.

Finally, the Commission is aware of the added value which international structures represent for the national, regional or local organisations of which they are made up. The existence of networks and central structures has a direct impact on the volume and quality of international activities proposed.

At the end of 1997, the Commission drew up a report on the use of this funding between 1995 and 1997, and this will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament. The report shows how the number of applications for funding has grown, partly because, since 1997, calls for proposals have been published in the Official Journal and are thus more widely publicised, partly because, in the interests of transparency, information is now available on the Internet, and finally because of the creation of new international structures. This trend will probably continue in 1998.

The report shows, too, that the beneficiaries' operating costs are also rising, chiefly because of the geographical expansion of the networks.

In this situation, it is only because of the trade-offs which have been necessary under Heading 5 of the Financial Perspective in view of the current budgetary difficulties that the Commission has been obliged to reduce the amount proposed for this item in the 1998 preliminary draft budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0042/98 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission (15 January 1998)

Subject: Compatibility of the Finnish system of taxation of electricity with the Treaty before 1 January 1997

The Advocate-General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has published his opinion on the case of Outokumpu Oy versus the State of Finland. Outokumpu Oy was seeking a refund from the State of Finland of the tax levied on the electricity it had imported from Sweden, which it regarded as a form of import duty prohibited by Community law. The Advocate-General's opinion does not support Outokumpu Oy's claim.

The Commission had informed Finland on 23 November 1995 that it regarded the electricity tax which was then in force in Finland as discrimination contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty. Largely on this basis, the bias in favour of the environment was abandoned in the taxation of electricity in Finland with effect from 1 January 1997.

According to the Advocate-General, the Treaty does not prohibit taxation of electricity which favours less environmentally damaging production methods. Similarly, the Directive on the transmission of electricity stipulates that energy policy should not have the sole object of reducing costs and maintaining competition but that account should also be taken of the compatibility of energy with the environment.

If the Court decides to uphold the opinion of the Advocate-General, will the Commission even then consider that the electricity tax levied in Finland before 1997 was contrary to the Treaty, or would Finland have had the right to retain its taxation system, which served to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in electricity production?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

In the current state of the proceedings the answer to the Honourable Member can only be that the ruling of the Court of justice should be awaited. Any reflection on what the Commission will do, depending on the outcome of these proceedings, is premature. After the pronouncement of the judgment and taking into account the reasoning of the Court of justice the Commission will analyse the matter and draw its conclusions.

At the moment of the pronouncement of the judgment it will become apparent to what extent Finland could from the point of view of Community law eventually have upheld the former taxation model of electricity. Therefore, the second question of the Honourable Member will be answered by the decision of the Court in the matter.

It is useful to recall that the Commission has not questioned the right of the Member State to use taxation to promote environmental issues provided that such taxation is compatible with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/98 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Baby walkers

Before Christmas the European umbrella group for consumer organizations, International Testing (IT), published the result of a study on baby walkers. The study was financed by DG XXIV of the European Commission.

After testing 31 baby walkers, IT concluded that none of them would have met the draft EU safety standard. It found that none of the baby walkers addressed the increased speed and mobility which infants achieve when they use them and the potential accidents which results, particularly the risk of falling down stairs. Some of the baby walkers studied enabled children to achieve speeds twice the normal walking pace of adults.

The European Consumers' Organization BEUC has argued that the draft EU safety standard does not take into account the increased mobility associated with baby walkers, even though this is the main cause of baby walker accidents.

What plans does the Commission have to address this deficiency? Will the Commission revise the draft safety standards so that they take on board the concerns voiced by consumer groups, parents and many other EU citizens about baby walkers? In particular, will it take measures to require that manufacturers of baby walkers devise ways to limit the speed which infants can achieve if they use baby walkers?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

The Commission is not itself able to revise European standards as they are produced in co-operation between parties concerned in the framework of the European committee for standardisation (CEN).

As the Commission is well aware of the different problems related to baby walkers, it has taken action in order to address potential deficiencies. After agreement by the Member States, the Commission issued a mandate to the European standardisation organisations for the drafting of a European standard to take into consideration all potential safety aspects. Another action taken is the financing of the study mentioned by the Honourable Member, which will improve the knowledge of different safety dangers and will provide important data for the standardisation work.

To assure that the safety of consumers and other consumer interests are fully taken into account in the standardisation process, the Commission supports the functioning of ANEC, the European association dealing with co-ordination and representation of consumers into standardisation.

The Commission will continue to follow this issue closely.