ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2513/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: VAT and air transport

1. How and when does the Commission intend to bring air tickets into line with the VAT (Value Added Tax) provisions for the different modes of transport (railways and roads) in the different Member States?

2. How high (in percentage terms) could the VAT be?

3. What will be the cost (in absolute figures) of introducing VAT on air tickets?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

The transport of passengers for consideration, according to the sixth VAT Directive ((Directive 77/388/EEC - OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 recently modified by Directive 96/42/EG, ABl L 170 vom 9.7.1996. )), is a taxable supply of services provided that the transport takes place on the tax territory of the Member States. This rule covers all modes of transport including air transport.

With regard to the applicable tax rates, the Directive gives the opportunity to the Member States either to apply the standard rate or to opt for a reduced rate. In addition, the Member States can continue the application of already existing zero-rates or tax exemptions.

Despite the existing differences in the tax rates applied by the Member States, the different means of transport are, in general, treated on equal terms. Only on the taxation of cross border transportation of passengers are different tax rates applied to rail, road, sea and air transport. In this respect air transport, as opposed to land based transport, benefits from the uniform application of a zero rate.

The Commission is examining at present to what extent the rules of the sixth VAT Directive applicable to passenger transport have to be revised. This examination will analyse in particular the need also to tax cross-border air transport and the need for further harmonisation of tax rates.

The Commission at the end of 1995 put in hand a study of the economic consequences of the different tax options. Since the results are not yet available, the Commission is not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member's questions. The Commission will however, after the study is completed, within the framework of any proposal for a directive, make the requested information available to the Parliament and to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2766/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: Article 235

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, said that the IGC was discussing the question of whether Article 235 should in future only be used subject to the assent of the European Parliament.

Although this new-found desire to improve scrutiny of the use of Article 235, which is all too often misused, is to be welcomed, one may well wonder whether, in this case, the European Parliament, which is generally the first to encourage its improper use, is the best judge of the matter.

Would the Presidency not agree that it should propose to the IGC either that Article 235 be deleted altogether - in which case the normal rules for revision of the Treaties would apply - or that provision should indeed be made for an assent procedure, but that such assent should be given by the national parliaments?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - legislative status

1. Are the contents of the Annex to Decision 94/730/EC ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31. ))to be understood as a suggestion to the Member States to which they are addressed, in accordance with Article 1(5) and Article 2(2) of Decision 93/584/EEC ((OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 42. )) and Article 4(1) and (3), the first sentence of Article 5 and Article 7 of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )) or as binding within the meaning of Article 189(4) of the EC Treaty?

2. Does Decision 94/730/EC set out the criteria for a simplified procedure or does it constitute a simplified procedure itself?

3. If it sets out the criteria,

a) how was the transposition of the criteria for simplified procedures ascertained by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and Parliament?

b) what possibilities are there for monitoring?

4. If it constitutes a procedure in itself,

a) how was the introduction and transposition ascertained by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and Parliament?

b) what possibilities are there for monitoring?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2839/96 by Per Stenmarck (PPE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Special rules concerning French civil aircraft pilots

According to DGAC, France's civil aviation authority, French airlines including Air France and TAT have been granted an exemption (pursuant to Articles D422-11, D422-12 and D422-13 of the French Civil Aviation Code) allowing them to require their pilots to work longer hours.

Does the Commission consider the French State's authorization, inter alia for a national carrier, of special rules which distort competition in the Union's air transport sector to be compatible with the Treaty? This move will cut costs for French airlines, but other European carriers do not have the opportunity to profit from such measures.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1996)

There are no Community rules regulating the working time or flying hours of pilots. Civil aviation and other transport sectors are excluded from the scope of Council Directive No 93/104/EC ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. The Commission is, however, currently preparing a white paper on all the sectors and activities excluded from this Directive.

Pilot hours are regulated by national provisions and these vary greatly from one Member State to another. They only constitute one among many elements relating to pilots and, in the present case, the Commission has no reason to believe that the decision in question is distorting competition.

Work to draw up a harmonised flight time limitation scheme has been continuing within the Joint aviation authorities and the Joint aviation committee for over five years but so far no agreement has been reached.

Given the current impasse, and in response to a Resolution of the Parliament in March last year the Commission announced an initiative to table its own proposals. To this end a forum of all interested parties was held in June 1996 and a special task force was established to assist the Commission. The task force has met four times already and the Commission hopes to table proposals early next year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/96 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Council (22 July 1996)

Subject: The importance of transparency in the management of highly enriched uranium and plutonium

The declaration of the Moscow Nuclear Safety and Security Summit of 20 April 1996 states at paragraph 30 that the parties to the agreement recognise the importance of ensuring transparency in the management of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

As the conclusions of the Presidency at the Florence Council in June specifically called on the Irish Presidency to bring the Union closer to its citizens by, inter alia, providing transparency and openness in the Union's work, what steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the nuclear materials management decisions at the Sellafield - and La Hague - reprocessing plants are made openly and communicated to the public in timely fashion, rather than taken secretly as has hitherto happened?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2050/96 and 2051/96 (30 January 1997)

1. The Council shares the concern for institutional transparency expressed at various European Councils and referred to by the Honourable Member. It would stress in this context that paragraph 30 of the Declaration made at the Moscow Nuclear Safety and Security Summit of 20 April 1996 ("we recognize the the importance of ensuring transparency in the management of highly enriched uranium and plutonium designated as no longer required for defence purposes") bears witness to the political will in this area.

2. The Council would point out that the objective of reducing the large stocks of fissile materials resulting from the dismantling of nuclear weapons is an issue of major importance for non-proliferation. All options in this area must be carefully considered on their respective merits, taking into account their consequences for safety and security issues.

3. The Council would point out that the reprocessing plants situated in the territory of the Member States of the European Union are subject to current Community legislation on security controls, which provides for the Commission to be kept informed of movements and inventories of nuclear materials.

It should however be noted that Article 194 of the Euratom Treaty governing the confidentiality of such data, particularly in relation to the public, specifies that the classification and secrecy of such information is a matter for the Member States.

4. As regards the question concerning MOX, the Council would point out to the Honourable Member that conversion into MOX fuel is only one of the options envisaged in paragraph 29 of the Moscow Summit Declaration, and was amongst those considered by the international experts meeting in Paris last October under the aegis of the G7 + Russia.

The Counci wishes to point out that control and safeguards measures on the manufacture of MOX and at reprocessing facilities are applied at national, Community and international level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2794/96 by Annemarie Kuhn (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs

Experts in Germany are increasingly giving warnings against antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs. Because of the widespread use of antibiotics in the fattening of livestock many bacteria have now become resistant to antibiotics. There is justified concern that strains of bacteria which have become resistant are spreading not only among farm animals but also in the general population through those who work in stock rearing. The German Minister for Agriculture has already banned the use of avoparcin as a feedingstuffs additive. The EU's Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition however does not consider that a general ban is necessary.

1. How does the Commission assess the dangers of resistant bacteria and their transference to humans?

2. Why do the scientists on the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition assess the danger from avoparcin differently from the German experts?

3. Is the Commission considering a general ban on antibiotics in animal feed, not least in view of the escalation of the BSE crisis? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)

1. The Commission wishes to complete its consultations before commenting on any possible risk that the use of avoparcin in feedingstuffs might pose to humans, in accordance with the rules of procedure laid down in Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs ((OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970. )).

2. On a subject as complex as the induction of resistance to antibiotics, given the current level of scientific know-how in this area scientists might conceivably differ as to the real risk posed by the use of glycopeptides.

3. To propose an all-out ban on the use of antibiotics in feedingstuffs, under the terms of Directive 70/524/EEC the Commission must have hard scientific evidence challenging the safety of this category of additives. So far it only has data that calls into question the authorization of avoparcin, on which it must rule without delay.

However, the Commission will have to review the current status of antibiotics in the near future. Under the Act of Accession, a decision must be taken before 31 December 1998 on Sweden's request that the Community prohibit the use of all antibiotics. Sweden is committed to providing evidence justifying its request, and the Commission intends to rule quickly on this information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Cohesion Fund and Castile-La Mancha (Spain)

What projects have been financed under the Cohesion Fund in the region of Castile-La Mancha?

What projects, including those of a multi-regional nature, have included the Autonomous Community of Castile-La Mancha (Spain)?

What sum did the co-financing of these projects amount to?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2897/96, E-2898/96 and E-2965/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

Applications for finance submitted to the Commission are managed by Member State, with the result that there are no regional data on projects financed by the Cohesion Fund.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Members to refer to the annual reports of the Cohesion Fund which are sent direct to them and to Parliament's General Secretariat. Annex I to these Reports contains the main points of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund under Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) and a description of the project and its objectives, its location and the amounts financed.

Data on the projects approved in 1996 will be available at the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2977/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: EU financial participation in controlling the spread of Pseudomonas Solanacearum

The disease caused by the Pseudomonas Solanacearum bacterium in seed potatoes and potatoes for human consumption produced in the Netherlands is causing serious problems for agriculture in various Member States, particularly Portugal.

Following Commission Decision 95/506/EC of 24 November 1995 ((OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 48. )), which adopted specific measures to be followed by the Netherlands and authorized the introduction of additional measures by other individual Member States, Portugal not only implemented all the measures recommended in the Decision but also went a step further, in the form of an additional national plant-health protection programme.

All this huge set of measures designed to limit the spread of, and ultimately eradicate, the disease is still in force at a great financial cost which is being exclusively borne by Portugal.

This is a problem stemming from agricultural products recognized and proved to have originated in one Member State (the Netherlands). As in other, similar cases it is clearly a matter to be resolved by means of joint financial solidarity mechanisms.

Would the Commission say whether or not it is envisaged that the EU will provide full or partial financial support for the expenditure which Portugal (and other member States) are having to shoulder in order to control and eradicate the disease caused by the Pseudomonas Solancearum bacterium? If such a financial solidarity mechanism has not yet been decided upon, does the Commission intend to submit an appropriate proposal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

The Commission is aware of outbreaks in Portugal of potato brownrot, caused by pseudomonas solanacearum, as well as of the measures taken to control the disease.

The current Community plant health regime as established by Directive 77/93/EEC ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. )) on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products or against their spread within the Community, as last amended by Directive 96/14/EC ((OJ L 68, 19.3.1996. )) does indeed not include provisions for a financial contribution from the Community for expenses incurred by those facing such outbreaks.

However, it should be noted that in this respect the Commission presented in 1989 a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/93/EEC ((OJ C 31, 9.2.1990 and OJ C 205, 6.8.1991. )). It consists essentially of two elements, financial solidarity under which a Community fund would be created to provide a contribution to Member States' expenses in combatting an outbreak of a harmful organism spread by contaminated consignments, and financial liability under which this contribution would have to be reimbursed to the solidarity fund in the event a Member State did not comply with obligations under the Community plant health regime. The proposal is still under discussion in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/96 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Council (10 October 1996)

Subject: Return to sender of radioactive waste from Sellafield

In an interview with the Financial Times, published on 28 June 1996, Mr Neville Chamberlain, deputy chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, indicated that despite a British Government commitment made in 1976 to return to sender radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield, BNFL was now considering the permanent on-site storage at Sellafield of high level waste from the THORP plant, rather than returning the waste to foreign customers in Japan and Germany.

As the European Union, through Euratom, is about to negotiate a new peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with Japan, can the Council ensure that until such time as reprocessing at Sellafield is halted completely, any new nuclear cooperation agreement with Japan includes a clear stipulation that Japan cannot in perpetuity dump its unwanted radioactive waste at Sellafield and La Hague but must be committed to accepting the entire radioactive burden back?

Answer (30 January 1996)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given by the Council to her Question No H-629/96 on the same subject during question time at the September 1996 part-session.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Animal experimentation

Can the Commission explain why no action plan has been drawn up for the implementation of the European Community Environment Action Programme 1993 - which calls for a 50% reduction in the number of animals used for experimentation?

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the programme is put into palce and progres monitored in all Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1996)

The European Community environment action programme 1993 foresees a 50% reduction in the number of vertebrate animals used for experimental purposes.

In order to examine the practical possibilities for reaching this objective, the Commission is organising a conference in the first half of 1997 to discuss a 50% reduction policy. This will bring together key players in the field of animal experimentation with a specific view to discuss how to develop such a reduction programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3560/96 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1996)

Subject: 1996: European Year of Education and Lifelong Learning

There are just two months left before the end of the European Year of Education and Lifelong Learning, which has passed by unnoticed by most European citizens who have been virtually unaware of its existence. However, it has been well received by those members of the public who had the chance to learn about it. In view of the great importance of education and lifelong learning in today's Europe,

Can the Commission report on the main activities which have taken place this year to make European citizens aware of this issue?

What aspects deserve most attention and what lines of action does the Commission suggest should be taken as a follow-up?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1997)

Despite there being limited funds available, the European Year of Lifelong Learning has proved to be the springboard for a vast range of activities. Proposals were put forward for more than 5 000 projects, of which some 550 have received Community funding from the resources allocated for the European Year. Around 2 500 events have been organised, including those financed by other Community programmes or by bodies in the Member States. The impact of the Year can be measured by the fact that some 4 000 press articles are known to have been published throughout the participating countries (including member countries of the European Economic Area). The Internet site created specifically for the Year by the Commission has been visited on more than 80 000 occasions.

Events have mainly taken the form of conferences and exhibitions, open days, television broadcasts, brochures, newsletters, the Internet site and competitions. The jointly financed projects are listed in a compendium which is being forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. A report on the implementation of the European Year will be presented to Parliament in 1997.

The Commission has not yet formulated guidelines for subsequent action to promote lifelong learning. Approaches which are currently being studied include the idea of anchoring the principle more firmly within programmes such as Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci, renewal of the competition on the subject of educational multimedia software as part of the action plan for 'Learning in the information society' ((Doc. COM(96) 471. )) and maintenance of the European Year's Internet site beyond the end of the year as a means of encouraging the formation of networks among interested individuals and institutions. A further point to note is that the Council, at its meeting on 21 November 1996, outlined a strategy for lifelong learning.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/96 by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Cohesion Fund and Castile and Leon (Spain)

What projects have been financed under the Cohesion Fund in the region of Castile and Leon (Spain)?

In which projects, including those involving more than one region, has the Autonomous Community of Castile and Leon been included?

What are the sums involved in the cofinancing of each individual project?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2897/96, E-2898/96 and E-2965/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

Applications for finance submitted to the Commission are managed by Member State, with the result that there are no regional data on projects financed by the Cohesion Fund.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Members to refer to the annual reports of the Cohesion Fund which are sent direct to them and to Parliament's General Secretariat. Annex I to these Reports contains the main points of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund under Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) and a description of the project and its objectives, its location and the amounts financed.

Data on the projects approved in 1996 will be available at the end of this year.