ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Reduction of VAT due on repairs to religious buildings

Would the Commission support a call for the reduction of the rate of VAT levied on repairs to buildings used for religious purposes from 17.5 % to 5 %?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

Under current Community value added tax (VAT) legislation, Member States are not allowed to allocate repair, renovation and maintenance of churches and religious buildings to a reduced rate of VAT. A Commission proposal on the harmonisation of VAT rates, which will possibly tackle the question put by the Honourable Member, is currently being prepared. In this context, the idea of attributing a reduced VAT rate to repair, renovation and maintenance of historic buildings and churches will also be considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1450/98

by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Commission implementation of the Council's decision concerning financial support to the applicant countries of Eastern Europe

Will the Commission explain how the decision taken by the Luxembourg European Council, i.e. that "financial support to the countries involved in the enlargement process will be based on the principle of equal treatment, independently of time of accession, with particular attention being paid to countries with the greatest need", has been implemented in the Agenda 2000 document of 18 March 1998?

Will it in particular clarify how such financial support helps to reduce the social and economic disparities between Estonia on the one hand and Latvia and Lithuania on the other?

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

(29 May 1998)

In order to finance the reinforced pre-accession strategy, the Commission proposed in Agenda 2000(1) a package of 21 000 MECU for the period 2000-2006. In these 7 years the annual amount of 3 000 MECU will comprise: 1 500 MECU for Phare, 500 MECU for special aid for agriculture and 1 000 MECU for structural aid. This means more than doubling the present Community contribution to the pre-accession strategy.

The package is intended to benefit all candidates according to their needs. As soon as one of them accedes to membership and becomes eligible for Community funds for Member States, it is no longer eligible for pre-accession aid. The 3 000 MECU will be divided up among those remaining outside, who will all receive more. This will allow the Community to concentrate increasing financial means on the less advanced countries along the inclusive process of enlargement.

Furthermore a special 100 MECU "catch-up facility" is being set up for candidates that have not yet started negotiations. Its objectives are to help complete the restructuring of the banking sector and large state owned enterprises (including related social and environmental measures) to promote foreign direct investment and to help the fight against corruption.

The Honourable Member refers to "economic and social disparities between Estonia on the one hand and Lithuania and Latvia". Any such disparities will of course benefit from all the measures mentioned above and in particular the "catch-up facility".

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Transposition of the IPPC Directive

The IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) of 24 September 1996(1) must be transposed into the national law of the Member States of the European Union by 30 October 1999. A crucial element of that Directive is the principle of the "best available techniques" (BATs). As far as I am aware, the European IPPC Office in Seville is to draw up a definition of BATs, provide the relevant documentary evidence for that definition and publish its content.

The IPPC Directive cannot be properly applied in the Member States until the definition of BATs is available.

What progress on this issue has the European IPPC Office in Seville made to date, and when may we expect the definition of BATs to be published?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The deadline for transposition into national legislation of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) is indeed 30 October 1999, and the principle of "best available techniques" (BAT) is a crucial element. It is not true, however, that the European IPPC bureau in Seville is to draw up a definition of BAT.

The term "best available techniques" is comprehensively defined in Article 2(11) of the Directive, and only this definition is valid for determining the legal obligations introduced by the Directive.

The European IPPC bureau in Seville does have a role in the information exchange on BAT organised by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(2), which will result in the publication by the Commission of BAT reference documents (BREFs). These documents, however, have no legal status except insofar that the information they contain must be taken into account when determining best available techniques in accordance with Annex IV of the Directive.

The intention is to produce BREFs covering all IPPC sectors by the year 2002. The first BREFs are expected to appear early in 1999.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1283/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Repairing damage to agriculture caused by natural disaster in Greece

The recent disastrous weather which inflicted severe gales, rainstorms and frost on many parts of Greece (the Peloponnese, islands etc.) caused widespread damage to production, plant and animal resources and infrastructure.

Since restoring agricultural potential after natural disasters is one of the EAGGF's priority intervention measures (Art. 5, ninth indent, of Regulation No. 4256/88(1), will the Commission say whether it will approve any request that Greece might make for the reallocation of funding from the Community Support Framework in order to repair the damage to agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The Commission expresses its sympathy to the farmers whose production and productive capacity were hit by bad weather.

The Commission is willing to examine a request from the Greek authorities, supported by detailed and well-argued documentation, for a reordering of priorities within the Community support framework (CSF) in order to cover the repair of the damaged productive capacity. However, given the advanced stage of implementation of the CSF, the actual possibilities for reallocating the appropriations still available are extremely limited.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 25.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Energy policy

Can the Commission confirm that the choice of energy sources, including the abandonment of nuclear power or banning its introduction, does not fall within the remit of the EU?

Can the Commission confirm that it has no objections to the decommissioning of the Barsebäck power station, a mere 20 kms from Copenhagen?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1998)

In its White Paper on "An Energy Policy for the European Union"(1), the Commission notes that the Member States take diverse approaches to energy and that Community energy policy needs to take this into account (paragraph 80). With more specific regard to nuclear energy, the Commission also notes that "a number of Member States depend to a large extent on nuclear energy, while others prefer to pursue a non-nuclear energy policy". It points out, however, that "the European institutions have responsibilities under the Euratom Treaty which permit the development of nuclear energy in conformity with the rules and policies at national level" (paragraph 84).

The Commission believes it falls to the Member States to decide about nuclear energy. Regarding the governmental decision on the closure of the Barsebäck power station, the Commission would indicate that it has received a complaint on this matter under the Community competition rules. As the complaint is still being assessed, the Commission is unable to say what conclusions may be reached.

(1) COM(95) 682 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1009/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Apparent illegality of the prohibition on benefiting from state aid in conjunction with Community funding

As the Campania Region's MOP has been approved by the Commission and the Commission has always preferred -and in fact required - the funds it grants to be accompanied by corresponding financial aid provided directly by the Member State or by regional or local authorities etc (i.e co-financing), and measure 2.2 of the Campania MOP concerns the creation of infrastructures, the question arises whether the prohibition imposed on the Campania Region is lawful and consistent with Commission guidelines.

This prohibition means that, if infrastructures are created by consortia (local development bodies comprising public and private organizations and local authorities), they are entitled to receive Community funding alone and, if they are eligible for aid from the Member State for the creation of the infrastructures in question, they must forgo it. This seems absurd, and in fact some organizations intend to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

This being so, does the Commission agree that it should take action to clarify the matter with a view to ultimately reversing this ban, which effectively precludes national co-financing and is inconsistent both with Community rules and the Campania Region's support framework?

Moreover, the office responsible for administering measure 2.2 has shown and stated that the ban results from the rules laid down by the Commission concerning the application of the net/gross grant equivalent system. As the infrastructures in question are in the public interest, however, does the Commission agree that it should state its position on the application of the net/gross grant equivalent system, as the relevant criteria should apply solely to measure 2.1 (a measure to assist SMUs) and not to measure 2.2, which concerns the public, rather than the private, sector?

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

(7 May 1998)

Measure 2.2 of the Campania regional operational programme provides for European regional development fund assistance to public investment in industrial zones. The aid rate is 50 %. Such publicly funded infrastructures are made available for sale or rent to firms at market rates in order to avoid distortion of competition.

In Campania construction of industrial zones is also apparently undertaken by consortiums of local firms using private finance to fund the investment. These consortiums have applied for assistance under measure 2.2 and the region proposes an amendment of the measure to include also privately financed industrial zones.

These would be eligible for structural fund aid at the 50 % aid rate foreseen for public investments. However, the region does not intend also to refinance the private contribution of 50 % with an additional public contribution, this making it possible for the consortiums' investments to be 100 % publicly financed. The Commission has no objection to this approach.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/98

by José Escudero (PPE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Cultural cooperation

The report on Article 128, or the cultural aspects of the Community's activities, the conclusions of the Cultural Affairs Councils and the European Parliament's reports all call for cultural cooperation between international organizations such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe and the European Commission to be strengthened.

Could the Commission say whether there is already a legal framework for cooperation of this nature? What form does this cooperation take, or what form should it take, in practice? Does the Commission intend to create the mechanisms needed for joint action and thereby increase the range of its operations by pooling its resources with those of other organizations whose aims it shares?

What joint measures has the Commission carried out with UNESCO on the basis of the operational agreement signed in February 1996?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 1998)

The basis for cooperation between the Community and the Council of Europe and other international organisations in the field of culture such as the United Nations Organisation for Education, Science and Culture (Unesco) is Article 128(3) of the EC Treaty.

On 5 November 1996 there was an exchange of letters between the Commission and the Council of Europe updating the exchange of 16 June 1987. This makes provision in particular for informal contact between representatives of the Commission and representatives of the Secretariat-General of the Council of Europe designed to ensure that their officials attend sectoral meetings on a reciprocal basis in accordance with their respective procedures.

Since December 1997 representatives of the Council of Europe have been invited regularly to meetings of the Cultural Affairs Committee. This follows the authorisation given to the Committee by the Council on 11 December 1996 to hold informal discussions on cultural matters outside meetings where it is deliberating as part of the Council's decision-making process.

Similarly, the Community and Unesco more recently exchanged letters with a view to facilitating operational cooperation between Unesco and the Commission.

Cultural cooperation between the two has mainly revolved around specific projects supported by the Community as part of its programmes and by Unesco as part of the activities within its own terms of reference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Cycling

Does the Commission have any plans to press Member States to produce a cycling master plan along the lines of that in the Netherlands and UK?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 1998)

The Commission is aware of and welcomes the comprehensive cycling plans adopted by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It does not plan to introduce a similar plan at European level as this subject clearly falls under the responsibility of Member States.

As part of the follow-up to the Citizens' Network Green Paper(1), however, the Commission is sponsoring the creation of a computerised database of good practice in local and regional passenger transport - the Citizens' Network Information Service, - which should be available from the middle of 1998. Cycling is one of the subjects covered by this database.

The Commission is also launching a pilot exercise in benchmarking local passenger transport systems. Again, the contribution of cycling to the performance of these systems is one of the issues that will be addressed.

In relation to longer distance cycling, the Commission is supporting an assessment of the feasibility of establishing and financing the EuroVelo network of international cycle routes. While this network would primarily benefit leisure and tourist cycling, it would also enhance cycling provision in and near towns.

(1) COM(95) 601 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1408/98

by Helwin Peter (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Planned factory outlet mall in Zweibrücken

On 7 October 1997, in response to my Written Question E-2966/97(1), the Commission said that it had asked the German authorities for their comments and that it would decide what action to take in the light of their reply. Has it now received those comments? If so, what action has it decided to take, or alternatively, when may we expect a decision?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 1998)

The matter has been the subject of several exchanges of correspondence with the German authorities and is not yet closed.

Most recently, the Commission wrote to the Federal Government on 11 May 1998 requesting it to supplement the information it provided on 16 March 1998.

(1) OJ C 134 30.4.1998, p. 46.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1513/98

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

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Publication of answers to written questions to the Commission

Article 140 of the EC Treaty permits Members of the European Parliament to put questions to the Commission. The questions and answers are public and are published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The answer to Question No P-3277/97 on textile imports from Bangladesh was not published "because of the length of the answer". I was subsequently telephoned by many members of the public and firms asking me to send them the answer. I had the answer only in Dutch, of course. This results in unequal access to information.

1. Can the Commission tell me whether answers must not exceed a given length if they are to be published?

2. If so, what is it?

3. Does the Commission agree that the European public must be able to take note of the answers to questions put by their representatives in the European Parliament, so that transparency may be ensured?

4. If so, how does the Commission plan to publish all answers in the future?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The Commission aims to give concise but complete answers to parliamentary questions. As a general internal rule, answers to oral questions should not exceed half a page, and answers to written questions should not exceed one page.

The right is reserved to forward longer answers to written questions direct to the member of Parliament, thereby economising the resources involved in translating the whole answer into all the other languages and publishing it in 11 languages in the Official journal. Such longer answers (typically consisting of statistics or tables of figures) are also copied to Parliament's secretariat, so they are available to all members.

The Commission considers that this is a commonsense practice which should receive Parliament's approval. Parliament's own rules recognise the need for concision (see e.g. annexe II point 7 concerning question time). As a budgetary authority, and responsible for publication of the answers in the Official journal (see article 42 of Parliament's rules), Parliament will appreciate the need to economise resources.

However in the case of the Honourable Member's written question P-3277/97 the Commission has now decided to remedy the situation by a new transmission of the complete answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Border areas: PHARE-CBC

The PHARE-CBC programme was established several years ago, on the initiative in part of the European Parliament, with a view to facilitating cooperation on the EU's immediate borders with the neighbouring regions in the EU, as a complement to the Community initiative Interreg.

With regard to the future development of PHARE-CBC, can the Commission rule out the possibility that the funds earmarked for cooperation with Interreg will be used in future to assist all border areas of the CEECs?

Can the Commission say whether the Interreg procedures will be applied to the future PHARE-CBC?

Can the Commission confirm that the list of areas eligible for aid until now under the new PHARE-CBC, such as tourism, agriculture/rural development, innovation/telecommunications, health care, etc., will remain unchanged and that therefore the crucial supra-regional cooperation in the border areas particularly affected by the enlargement to the East will not be jeopardized?

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

(18 June 1998)

The Commission is at present reviewing the Phare cross-border cooperation (CBC) Commission Regulation (EC) 1628/94 of 4 July 1994(1) with a view to increasing the programme's flexibility. The review will also take into account experience to date in coordinating Phare CBC activities with those funded from Community structural funds (Interreg IIA). The future orientations of the Phare-CBC programme are also the subject of discussion within the Phare management committee. It is not yet possible to say what the final outcome will be in relation to the geographical areas or types of activities which will be eligible under the revised Regulation.

(1) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1158/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Housewives

I have seen an article in the press referring in vague terms to the existence of European legislation that recognises the important role of housewives in modern society and seeks to uphold their status and their valuable role in the family.

Would the Commission state:

1. the main provisions of any such legislation;

2. whether any such legislation provides for the payment of Community funds for housewives (as claimed in the abovementioned article);

3. if so, how such funds may be obtained?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Whilst recognising the importance of the tasks performed by housewives, with regard to both their families and society as a whole, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is no Community legislation on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1338/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Habitats Directive and Berne Convention

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that it agrees on the inclusion in the annexes of the Berne Convention and the Emerald Network the key species which have been left out of the Annexes of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Commission has recommended to the Member States that they include new species not covered by the Annexes of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), the habitats Directive, for which it is scientifically justified and after consulting the scientific working group of the habitats Directive and the habitats committee.

For example, at its 17th standing committee, the Commission supported the inclusion of five new flora species in Annex II of the Bern Convention as well as new marine species in the Annexes I and III of the Bern Convention.

A similar approach is being taken for the Emerald network.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

(10 March 1998)

Subject: International carriage of passengers - Council Regulation (EEC) 684/92 of 16 March 1992

Is the Commission aware that, due to the contradiction between Article 4(2) and Article 2(1.3) of Regulation (EEC) 684/92(1), special regular services have started up which are covered by a contract and are taking away custom from existing regular services subject to authorization, thus seriously undermining the viability of the latter?

Is the Commission prepared to put an end to these pirate services, which are tolerated by the Member States, now that their existence has been brought to its attention?

If so, how and when?

If not, why not?

On the last point, why does the Commission not deregulate the regular services subject to authorization, thus opening them up to competition from companies established in the Member States, since the special regular services classified as regular services are not subject to authorization and so can damage the interests of existing regular services and replace them by virtue of a contract?

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, p. 1.