ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3863/98

by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Subject: Recognition of educational qualifications in the EU

Mr Davide Ferrando, an Italian law graduate living in Germany, recently sought permission to practise as a lawyer in two German Länder, Hesse and later Lower Saxony.

The answer in both cases was that, because it was made by a person who had not obtained his degree in Germany, the application was contrary to local legislation, specifically Article 23(I) of Hesse's law and Article 5 of Lower Saxony's law on exercise of the legal profession, which stipulate that persons wishing to practise cannot be permitted to do so unless they hold a degree obtained in Germany.

Does the Commission believe this attitude to be consistent with the principle of mutual recognition of qualifications within the Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

Under Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration(1), a national of a Member State can take up in another Member State a profession for which he is entirely qualified in the Member State of origin. This means the national has to meet all requirements there. However, the person mentioned by the Honourable Member seems not to be entirely qualified as a lawyer in Italy. The academic degree of a "laureato" is not sufficient to work as a lawyer.

The principle of mutual recognition can be applied to professional qualifications only, but not to academic qualifications that do not entitle the holder to pursue a profession in the Member State of origin. Academic recognition is outside the present scope of Community law.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
91998E3306

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3306/98 by Kenneth COATES to the Council. Code of conduct on arms exports



Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0062
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3303/98 by Kenneth COATES to the Council. Code of conduct on arms exports



Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0061



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3303/98 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Council (10 November 1998) Subject: Code of conduct on arms exports Will the code of conduct on arms exports prohibit the licensed production of arms, as distinct from arms exports, where they might be used in situations prescribed by the code of conduct? If not, how is this problem to be addressed?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Restructuring measures in compliance with EU rules

One form of promotion at national and European level is financial assistance for the restructuring of firms. This policy should be fully endorsed provided that balanced market conditions are maintained and the preconditions are observed.

However, restructuring processes often lead to concentration in the market. The first to be affected by this are small and medium-sized enterprises, which also create and safeguard many jobs. This is true, for example, of the current situation in the Austrian bread and confectionery industry, where small and medium-sized craft enterprises account for 80 % of commercial production. Applications for assistance made by certain large enterprises under the Austrian Labour Market Promotion Act should therefore be examined for compliance with the competition law of the European Communities.

Does the Commission share the questioner's concern about the situation in the Austrian bread and confectionery industry?

How does the Commission ensure that the same promotional measures are open to all producers, thus preventing this situation from causing distortions of competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The Commission has already been made aware of a case in which aid for restructuring is said to have been sought by an enterprise in the Austrian bread and confectionery industry (the Honourable Member is referred to the answer the Commission gave to Written Question E-3003/98 by Mr Hager(1)). The Commission is naturally concerned by any state aid which distorts competition where it affects trade between Member States. Such aid needs to be notified to the Commission and examined against the provisions of the EC Treaty (Articles 92 and 93) before it can be granted.

Under the rules which the Commission has prepared for the exercise of its discretionary powers under these articles, aid for the rescue and restructuring of firms is restricted to firms which are in difficulty as defined in the relevant guidelines and which are as a consequence unable to finance such restructuring themselves. Such aid is not therefore open to all producers. It is however subject to the principle of necessity, that is, it must be the minimum necessary to restore the company's viability and to carry out the restructuring plan which has received the Commission's prior approval. By this means the distortion of competition is minimised. Provided this principle and the other provisions of the guidelines are met, the Commission may approve the aid.

(1) See page 38.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3923/98

by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Age limit for bus drivers

The age limit for bus drivers varies from Member State to Member State. For example, it is 65 in Italy (Article 135(6) of the Road Traffic Act) but 70 in Austria and Germany.

This situation has already resulted in legal uncertainty when checks have been carried out.

Can the Commission therefore indicate:

- whether a bus driver holding an Austrian or German driving licence may only drive a bus in Italy until age 65 and

- whether it intends in the foreseeable future to harmonise the provisions governing the age limit for bus drivers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E3997/97(1).

(1) OJ C 22, 17.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Support for fair trade projects

On 2 July 1998 Parliament adopted a resolution (A4-0198/98)(1) following an own-initiative report on fair trade in which a series of proposals was made for the future development of a Community fair trade policy.

1. What action will the Commission take on Parliament's resolution?

2. When will it publish the Green Paper on fair trade announced some time ago?

3. Which and what type of projects did it support in 1997 and 1998 involving the co-financing of NGO action in the field of fair trade?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 1999)

The Commission is carefully assessing the resolution adopted by Parliament in the context of its ongoing work on fair trade. Many of the issues raised require detailed analysis and consultation with the fair trade sector. This is now in hand. At the Agriculture Council in June 1998, it was agreed that the Commission should present a communication on fair trade by 1 March 1999. This text is being finalised.

In 1997, 15 projects to inform European public opinion on development issues relating to fair trade were financed under budget heading B7-6000. The amounts provided by the Commission (up to 50 % of the total cost of each project) totalled some EUR 2,9 million. In 1998, 21 projects were approved or about to be committed under that budget heading, totalling some EUR 3,7 million.

For some years, the Commission has been cofinancing labelling projects by NGOs or the organisations operating "World Shops" or which disseminate codes of conduct.

(1) OJ C 226, 20.7.1998, p. 73.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2623/98

by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Failure of certain Member States to implement obligations under MAGP III

According to information from the Commission a number of Member States, including the Netherlands, the UK and France, have failed to comply with their obligations under the multiannual guidance programme III - MAGP III - relating to the reduction of capacity in the fishing fleets of the relevant countries.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that these countries comply with their obligations under MAGP III?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1998)

A number of Member States failed to meet the final objectives of the third multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP III), either globally or for certain segments of the fleet.

Any backlog from the MAGP III must be made up during MAGP IV under the same conditions that applied during the MAGP III. Meanwhile, no construction or modernisation aid will be made available to any segment of the fleet until the global MAGP objectives have been met. If the global objectives have been met, such aid would be denied to those segments for which the segment objectives have not been met.

Concerning the three Member States specifically mentioned, France has made special efforts to remove capacity during 1998 and is expected to achieve the global MAGP III objectives before the end of 1998. It should be noted that this means that France would also be within the first intermediate objective of the MAGP IV. Similarly the United Kingdom has now achieved the global objectives of its MAGP. In the case of the Netherlands the Commission is carefully monitoring the steps being taken by the Dutch authorities to achieve the MAGP objectives, but maintains the possibity of legal action if these steps prove to be unsatisfactory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2648/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Export of pig offal from Northern Ireland

Is the Commission aware that the Irish Department of Agriculture has refused to grant import licences to companies in Ireland wishing to import pig offal from Northern Ireland, despite the North Ireland authorities clearly stating that the material in question (sourced from porcine animals) is not included under Commission Decision 97/534(1) as amended by Council Decision 98/248(2) on specified risk material? Can the Commission state whether this refusal is contrary to Community law on free trade?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The Commission was unaware, prior to the receipt of the Honourable Member's question, of any particular problems concerning the movement of porcine offal from Northern Ireland to Ireland. The Commission will contact the national authorities in order to obtain details of the situation.

It should be noted that the Community decisions mentioned by the Honourable Member are not applicable, because they do not apply to porcine meat or offal, and in any case the date for applicability has been postponed until 1 January 1999 by the latter decision. In the case of porcine offal fit for human consumption, free circulation is governed by Council Directive 95/23/EC of 22 June 1995 amending Directive 64/433/EEC on conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat(3). Other provisions apply to products not fit for human consumption.

Once the factual background is clarified, the Commission will examine whether the action by the Irish authorities necessitates its further intervention.

(1) OJ L 216, 8.8.1997, p. 95.

(2) OJ L 102, 2.4.1998, p. 26.

(3) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2893/98

by Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) to the Council

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Problems in implementing Article 8 ff. of the EU Treaty (citizenship of the Union, free movement)

The restrictive laws on foreign nationals of many of the Member States often run counter to the objectives of Article 8 of the EU Treaty. Foreigners are often discriminated against in relation to citizens of the country in question when it comes to rules on residence and social and labour law.

What is the Council doing to eliminate the obstacles to freedom of movement represented by the Member States' laws on foreign nationals?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

Under Article 8 of the EC Treaty, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union and, as such, enjoys the rights conferred by the Treaty and is subject to the duties imposed thereby.

Over a period of some years the Council has adopted a large number of acts concerning the free movement of persons and the right of establishment. These have covered the right of residence of Member States' nationals and their families, social legislation and the rights of employees and self-employed persons.

In the light of the recommendations of the High Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons, chaired by Ms Simone Veil, the Commission adopted a plan of action in which it said it would submit legislative proposals for improving the conditions under which the freedom of movement is exercised.

The Council recently received a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 68/360/EEC on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families and a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an advisory committee on freedom of movement and social security for Community workers and amending Council Regulations (EEC) 1612/68 and (EEC) 1408/71.

The Council will make every endeavour to ensure that the discussions on these proposals are brought to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.

As regards third-country nationals, the future Articles 62, point 1, and 63, point 4, of the EC Treaty - as introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty - will enable appropriate measures to be taken to facilitate the free movement of third-country nationals within the Community and the right of residence in the Member States for third-country nationals who are legally resident in one of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3040/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Discrimination between citizens in the province of Bolzano

The Autonomous Province of Bolzano is currently discussing Provincial law No 131/97 on the rules governing subsidised public housing in the province, Article 4 of which specifies that persons living abroad after having been resident in the province for at least five years (and their spouses, provided they are not separated) who intend to take up residence in the province again shall be treated, for the purposes of that law, on the same footing as persons resident in the province. This article, by according favourable treatment to persons who have lived abroad, discriminates against resident citizens who have been obliged, for similar reasons, to leave the province and take up residence in another region of Italy. In the case of the former, on their return to the province of Bolzano they are recognized as having acquired the same rights as resident citizens, with whom they are equated, while in the case of the latter they are denied those rights.Although this provision appears to apply to the whole population of Alto Adige regardless of the linguistic group to which they belong (Italian, German or Ladin), it is obvious that the Italian-language community is most likely to be adversely affected by it, as it is they who are obliged to move to other Italian cities for such purposes as to attend university (in which case they have to take up residence in the town in question) or as a condition of their employment (in the case of public sector employees, members of the armed forces and others). However, if such persons take up residence in another Italian city for as much as one day, they lose their right to apply for municipal housing for the next five years.

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state whether it regards the relevant article of Provincial law No 131/97 as introducing discrimination between European citizens, by not extending the same opportunities to all?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

The Commission is not in the habit of giving opinions on draft legislation which is still being discussed pending adoption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3511/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Counterfeit and pirated goods

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (COM(98) 25 final - 98/0018 ACC)(1), direct contact between rightholders (undertakings) and customs services is essential in order to increase the motivation of customs officials.

The power to restrict applications for seizure of goods at the frontier to specific EU countries is incompatible with the fundamental concept of the Community trade mark. In view of the fact that this is a single trade mark with a single legal basis throughout the Community, the only sensible solution in the long term is to have a single application for seizure of goods at the frontier which is valid in all Member States. Can the Commission take the appropriate action to this effect?

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 63.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3318/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Information about genetic manipulation in advertising

1. What measures is the Commission planning to take to ensure that advertising informs consumers about the genetic manipulation of soya and maize and other novel food products?

2. Does the Commission share the Members' view that information about genetic manipulation should be provided at the advertising stage, thus satisfying consumers' desire for information and transparency on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 1999)

The information that must be supplied under Council Directive 79/112/EEC (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer)(1) - e.g. the list of ingredients - does not extend to the area of advertising.

Only the requirement contained in that Directive's Article 2 that labelling contents and methods must not be such as might mislead the purchaser also applies to advertising.

The Commission does not at present envisage departing from this principle and making it obligatory for advertising to included information on any genetic manipulation of the advertised foodstuff or of its ingredients. The labels of foodstuffs remain, in the Commission's view, the appropriate place to inform consumers on a product's various properties.

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2382/98

by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Construction of a dam on the Ems German-Dutch border river having regard to the Habitats and Birds Directives

Having regard to the intention of the German authorities, in particular the Weser-Ems regional government and the Lower Saxony land government, to build a dam on the Ems river; having regard to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and Article 4 of the Birds Directive; having regard to the conclusions reached by the Netherlands Commission for environmental impact assessment to the effect that the assessment carried out by the German authorities did not provide sufficient information to enable the project's possible impact on the area's natural features to be assessed.

1. Has the Commission been in contact with the German authorities concerned, and if so on what basis?

2. How does the Commission view the German plans for building a dam, having regard to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and Article 4 of the Birds Directive, and in particular to the fact that the German authorities failed to investigate any alternatives to this project, which would appear to be a requirement in accordance with Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?

3. What further action will the Commission take in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission has been informed of the planned building. In view of several complaints referring to this plan the Commission has already contacted the German government.

The information sent by the complainants indicated to the Commission that an infringement of European law could not be excluded. This is due to the fact that the planned measures seem to affect on the German side one special protection area (SPA) directly and 3 SPA indirectly as well as on the Dutch side one SPA indirectly. Moreover, based on these documents it cannot be excluded that necessary alternative solutions as well as assessment of the implication in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) have not been carried out.

A decision on further action will be taken after receiving the information requested from the German government.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3595/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Council

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Application of the reduced VAT rate to wood as a source of energy

Council Directive 92/77/EEC(1) of 19 October 1992 authorises Member States to apply a reduced VAT rate to gas and electricity supplies.

Moreover, in its White Paper on renewable sources of energy (COM(97) 599) adopted by the European Parliament on 18.6.1998(2) the Commission sets itself the objective of doubling the share of renewable energies in overall energy consumption by the year 2010, amongst other means by adopting fiscal and finance measures drawn from "the necessary additional proposals for legislation and amendments to existing Directives ... including tax exemption or reduction on RES energy products."

The argument in favour of respecting competition constitutes a sine qua non for the application of the reduced VAT rate. Such competition is all the more fully respected in the case of thermal energy, which by its very nature cannot be transported for more than a few kilometres.

The budgetary impact of applying the reduced VAT rate to heating networks such as wood would be relatively minor.

Lastly, the exploitation of renewable energies as advocated by the Commission in its White Paper is hampered by the low price of "traditional" energies such as electricity and gas, due in part to the reduced VAT rate from which the latter benefit.

In view of the above, the fact that Council Directive 92/77/EEC applies the reduced VAT rate to natural gas and electricity alone would appear to present a contradiction.

Will the Council say on which grounds it has chosen to include only these two types of energy and, if relevant, provide details on the extension of the application of the reduced VAT rate to other energy sources, including the distribution of thermal energy (heat), especially when it is generated from a renewable energy such as wood?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

1. In adopting the Directive to which the Honourable Member refers, the Council abided by the objective of the Commission proposal.

2. Any extension of the scope of the present Directive would require a new Commission proposal, without which the Council cannot adopt a position.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 215.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3755/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Register of interests for Commissioners

In the light of your response to my question P-0357/95(1) does the Commission not feel that given that the register of MEPs is publicly available this should also be true of the Commission Register before the forthcoming European Elections?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The register of interests of Members of the Commission is available to anyone who requests it.

(1) OJ C 179, 13.7.1995, p. 15.