ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/00

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Equivalents of certain categories of driver's licences

In its decision on equivalents between certain categories of driver's licences the Commission gave a comprehensive review of driver's licences commonly encountered. Unfortunately, for Germany it omitted to include licences issued by the Allied occupying powers, by the Third Reich and the Weimar Republic. What are the equivalents of these licences?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

Commission Decision 2000/275/CE of 21 March 2000 on equivalences between certain categories of driving licences(1) is based upon the first paragraph of Article 10 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(2). It determines the equivalences between categories of licences, which have been issued before entry into force of Directive 91/439/EEC, and the categories defined in Article 3 thereof.

The above Commission Decision defines driving licence model Germany 1 as a model of licence which was issued in the Federal Republic of Germany before 1 April 1986. As regards driving licence models which have been issued in Germany before 1945 and by the Allied Forces after 1945, the following applies.

Driving licences, which were issued before 1945 were declared void for the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) by virtue of a national law adopted in 1949 and had to be exchanged for a new GDR-model. For holders of such licences, the equivalences of one of the models described in the above Decision apply.

With respect to the territory of the partioned Federal Republic of Germany, the system of categorising remained unchanged after 1945. Therefore, equivalences identical with those laid down for the model Germany 1 apply to all driving licences issued by the German authorities before 1945 and those issued thereafter by the Allied Forces, in those cases where the licences have not been exchanged. The only difference may be that some of those models do not contain Klasse 5 entitlements. The equivalence for this category may thus not be granted.

The German authorities have no knowledge of a single model of the above licences still being in circulation. For this reason they were unable to supply the necessary licence models to the Commission. Holders of such licences presumably have exchanged them in the meantime. Should such a licence appear, the German issuing authorities may be contacted in accordance with the general rule laid down in the first paragraph of the Commission Decision describing German models(3).

(1) OJ L 91, 12.4.2000.

(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(3) OJ L 91, 12.4.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Vietnam: meeting between Mr Prodi and Mr Lê Kha Phiêu

Despite the fact that Vietnam has shown not the slightest signs of any improvement in its current regime and there have, on the contrary, been further arrests of political and religious figures, the Vietnamese press agency has announced that the President of the Commission decided to hold a meeting on Saturday, 27 May with Mr Lê Kha Phiêu, Secretary-General of the Vietnamese Communist Party, in other words the politician who symbolises most obviously and most directly the anti-democratic face of Vietnam.

Can this decision by the President of the Commission be interpreted as marking the beginning of a shift away from the highly critical stance hitherto adopted by the European Union towards Vietnam and the abandonment of specific demands by the European institutions, in particular the European Parliament, that the Vietnamese authorities carry out political, economic and human rights reforms? If this is not the case, what guarantees did the Commission receive from the Secretary-General of the Vietnamese Communist Party concerning the willingness of the Vietnamese authorities to carry out rapidly the reforms necessary reforms to establish democracy and the rule of law in Vietnam?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1517/00 and confirms that the meeting between the President of the Commission and the Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam on 27 May 2000 did not represent any deviation from the policy of the Union in relation to Vietnam.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law of property of the Czech Republic

Is it true that, on a recent visit to the Czech Republic, Mr Verheugen, member of the Commission responsible for enlargement, said that the Commission would ensure that the continued existence of certain laws and decrees dating from 1945 and 1946 in the Czech Republic does not have a discriminatory effect in any current or future cases, in particular in the area of restitution?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The EC Treaty states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 ex Article 222). The Commission thus has no competence for intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

For this reason, the Commission does not foresee publishing a white book on this matter.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not for the Commission to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Western Sahara

Does the Council agree that the legal situation of the Western Sahara bears a number of resemblances to the situation of East Timor prior to its recent independence?

Will the Council point out to Morocco that its continued occupation of the Western Sahara damages the reputation of that country and entails a huge economic cost?

Will the Council press for early implementation of the envisaged referendum and counter any attempts to delay it?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

Any durable solution for Western Sahara must be acceptable to and endorsed by all parties involved. Convinced that such a solution can only be brought about in the framework of the United Nations,

the Council fully supports the efforts of the UNSG, his Special Representative for Western Sahara and his Personal Envoy, Mr James Baker. It fully supports the Settlement Plan for organising a free, proper and impartial referendum.

The Council has taken note of the remarks by the United Nations Secretary-General that the timetable envisaged for the referendum is no longer valid and that the date for the referendum can still not be set with certainty at this juncture. In this context it welcomes the meetings held on 14 May and 28 June in London and in more general terms the principle of direct talks between the parties to the conflict given the complexity of the situation. It hopes that these will respond positively to Mr James Baker's task of studying ways of reaching a swift, lasting and mutually agreed settlement of their dispute.

In its contacts with the United Nations and the parties to the conflict the Council stresses its willingness to contribute to this process and to help build a climate of confidence and trust in order to find a solution based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

How can the Member States speed up the implementation of the priority projects defined at the Essen summit?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

In the Commission's report to the Cardiff European Council(1) in 1998, it was stated that three of the 14 Essen projects are near completion (around 2000). Six other projects are due for completion around 2005 and financing is largely in place. Out of the remaining five projects three are corridor projects (multimodal link Portugal/Spain Europe, Nordic Triangle and Ireland-United Kingdom-Benelux road link) which makes it very difficult to establish firm overall timetables and financing plans because the corridors consist of a large number of smaller projects.

For the remaining two projects, namely the high speed train (HST) North-South and HST Lyon-Trieste construction has started on several important sections of the projects, but there are still financial problems and delays on some sections e.g. the two Alpine crossings.

According to the timetables and financial forecasts submitted by the Member States to the Commission, there will be a very substantial increase in expenditure on the 14 priority projects during the period 2000-2006, with many of the larger projects moving into the full construction phase. For the few remaining sections of the 14 priority projects where a firm timetable and financing have not yet been found, a combination of public and private finance is needed, together with the Member States giving higher priority to these specific projects in their national planning.

A detailed overview of the state of completion on each project will be presented in the forthcoming proposal for the revision of the Trans-European network (TEN) guidelines.

Concrete steps need to be taken, on a case by case basis as a matter of urgency, to agree the parameters and the mechanisms for the implementation of these private-public partnerships (PPPs). If this is done, it can help to achieve more rapid implementation and better value-for-money. A firm commitment is needed from Member States if the private sector is to invest

in the development of suitable financial instruments and approaches. The Commission will continue to work with the European investment bank (EIB) and European investment fund (EIF) to ensure effective use of the different Community instruments in supporting PPPs, particularly on the 14 priority projects.

(1) COM(98) 356.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1755/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Tax groups

Can the Council please provide details of all formal and informal groups and committees currently active in the field of taxation and taxation policy at EU level?

Specifically, could the Council please state:

(a) the remit of these groups,

(b) their composition,

(c) the date these groups first met, and

(d) what future meetings are scheduled?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council working parties competent in tax matters are the Working Party on Tax Questions and the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation).

The Working Party on Tax Questions is responsible for preparing all the Permanent Representatives Committee's and the Council's proceedings in the tax field, with the exception of those in connection with the Code of Conduct (Business Taxation). The Working Party consists of national civil servants and a representative of the Commission who are competent in the areas covered by the Working Party's proceedings.

The Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) is responsible for assessing tax measures likely to come within the scope of the code of conduct in the field of business taxation and monitoring the communication of information on those measures. The Group consists of a high-level representative and an alternate from each Member State and the Commission. The Member States and the Commission can appoint up to two alternates who may take the place of the high-level representative or the alternate when one of them is unable to attend a Group meeting. The Group met for the first time on 8 May 1998.

There is no fixed programme for the meetings of these working parties. As a general rule the Working Party on Tax Questions meets once or twice a week. The Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) has met 20 times since it was set up. Under the Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998 the Group must meet at least twice a year at high level to facilitate the political direction of the Group's proceedings.

There are also the Working Party on Tax Fraud and the High-level Working Party on Taxation, which have just concluded their proceedings.

Finally, there are working parties and committees at the Commission that work in the field of taxation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Business activities in Tuscany held up

No answer has been received yet to the rural development plan for Tuscany submitted at the beginning of July 1999 and drawn up in accordance with Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999(1) and 1750/1999(2) for rapid approval in the first few months of 2000. This has created considerable problems for the provincial administrations which, because they do not know when the RDP will be definitively approved, are not issuing provisional authorisations for work to start. This has led, in turn, to a freeze on the funding of the companies involved in work carried out since 1 January 2000, thereby holding up business activities in Tuscany. Can the Commission say what the causes of the delay are?

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

(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The rural development plan for the Region of Tuscany for the period 2000-2006 was communicated to the Commission, in accordance with Article 44(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(1), in a letter dated 14 December 1999 and was supplemented by incorporating essential elements under Article 43 of the aforementioned Regulation by letters dated 30 December 1999 and 26 January 2000.

The plan, which is complete following the latest additions, was received officially by the Commission on 1 February 2000. This date constitutes the starting point of the six-month period available to the Commission for carrying out its appraisal in accordance with Article 44(2) of the aforementioned Regulation, in order to achieve approval of the rural development plan as soon as possible in close cooperation with the Italian authorities.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2289/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Health promotion funding

Is the Commission aware that, whereas bids for the health promotion action programme were submitted in response to the September 1999 invitation on the announced basis of a funding split of 90 % EU grant and 10 % applicant funding, applicant organisations have now been told that, without warning or consultation, the funding split has been changed to 70 % and 30 % respectively; is the Commission further aware of the negative impact this will have on small but efficient organisations who have provided quality work for the Commission in the past; and will the Commission reconsider this, particularly for smaller organisations deemed to be in partnership as applies in other directorates?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

At no time has the Commission announced that the normal basis for funding under health programmes was 90 % Community grant and 10 % applicant funding.

In 1999, as an indication to applicants, the call for proposals mentioned that the average funding for 1998 projects was about 60 %. No other indication was given as to a minimum or maximum amount in percentage for the Community funding.

It is true that in 1999, a few projects were financed up to 90 % of eligible direct costs. In the application form, it was always clearly stipulated that this was an absolute and exceptional maximum that the Commission would allow, the actual grant being decided by the Commission, on a case to case basis. The programme committee was fully informed of this.

However in 1999 it was decided that the funding would normally be limited to a maximum of 70 % of eligible costs. Otherwise, the viability of the beneficiary and of the proposed action may be doubtful and the Commission grant loses its incentive and complementary nature.

This kind of approach has been confirmed by the Parliament, when it adopted the budget 2000 requesting specifically that all grants should include at least a co-financing part of 20 % coming from the beneficiary (comment to budget line A-302).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/00

by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

1. When is the regulation scheduled to enter into force so that Bulgaria is no longer on the list of countries for whose nationals a visa is required?

2. Is it not true that the opting-out provisions applicable to the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland are resulting in a multi -speed Europe and what message is this sending to the applicant countries?

3. In view of the numerous exemptions, the regulation appears to be of very limited value. Does it therefore still serve any useful purpose?

4. A change in political circumstances should alter the listing of a Member State accordingly in other words, how quickly is it possible for a country to move from one list to the other?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

1. The Commission presented a proposal for a Council Regulation listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement on 26 January(1). The proposal is being examined by the Council and by Parliament. The Commission is unable to offer any prior opinion as to when the Regulation will enter into force.

2. The applicant countries cannot rely on the Protocols on the position of Denmark and on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which are annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty. What is more, the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union stipulates that the Schengen acquis and further measures taken by the institutions within its scope shall be regarded as an acquis which must be accepted in full by all States candidates for admission.

3. In the Commission's proposal, the possible exemptions and derogations available to Member States for certain categories of persons correspond to practices enshrined in international law or to usage based on international custom.

4. Articles 62, 64 and 67 (formerly Articles 73 J, 73 L and 73 O of the EC Treaty lay down the procedure whereby a third country can move from the list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas to the list of countries whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

(1) COM(2000) 27 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1404/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Action against corrupt officials

In the book Blowing the Whistle, by Paul Van Buitenen, he refers to a number of officials of the European Commission who were corrupt.

Please will the Commission indicate what action has been taken against those officials named as corrupt in the official report?

Have any of them been retired on pensions, as Mr Van Buitenen claims in his book?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1404/00 and E-1420/00 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission investigates all allegations of acts committed by officials that could give rise to the opening of disciplinary proceedings.

In the cases relevant to the Honourable Member's question, disciplinary proceedings were opened some time ago and, where appropriate, files have been transmitted to the judicial authorities of Member States.

After due process, disciplinary proceedings relating to six officials referred to in Mr van Buitenen's book have been concluded. In two cases the officials were acquitted, in one case the official was reprimanded, in two cases the officials were dismissed, and in one case the official was dismissed with partial reduction of entitlement to retirement pension.

In other cases, disciplinary proceedings and administrative enquiries launched before and after the date of the publication of this book are in progress.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1572/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Public statements by Council officials

Does the Presidency of the Council agree with the statement by Mr de Boissieu, Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, as reported in The European Voice on 6 April 2000, that, since the Council is a decision-making body, openness in the manner in which it takes decisions is not a particular priority?

What are the terms of reference for the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council? To whom must he report in performing his duties?

Is there a code of conduct or are there internal rules governing the public appearances made by officials from the Council's General Secretariat? If not, why not?

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

Mr P. de Boissieu, Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, appeared before the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 3 April 2000 at the invitation of the Committee's Chairman. The version of Mr de Boissieu's remarks reported in The European Voice of 6 April 2000 binds that newspaper only. The members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs who attended the session heard exactly what Mr de Boissieu said.

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 207(2) of the EC Treaty, the Council is assisted by a General Secretariat, under the responsibility of a Secretary-General, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy who is assisted by a Deputy Secretary-General responsible for the running of the General Secretariat. The Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General are appointed by the Council acting unanimously.

Public activities of officials of the Council General Secretariat are governed by the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, notably Article 12.