ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Commission communication on tax coordination (COM(97) 495)

At the Ecofin meeting of 13 October 1997, this Commission Communication was debated for the first time. The document proposes a package of measures to tackle what it calls 'harmful tax competition'. The Council called on the Commission to bring forward a new Communication, by 12 November at the latest, taking into account the results of this meeting and of the meeting of the Tax Policy Group of 20 October. Ministers unanimously underlined their intention to reach political agreement on this matter at the Ecofin meeting on 1 December 1997.

With regard to the taxation of capital income, Point 19 III of the Communication states that 'every Member State should either operate a minimum withholding tax or provide information on savings income to other Member States'. Point 19 VI then states that 'Where a Member State does not use the exchange of information option, it should apply the withholding tax at a minimum level. The minimum tax rate should be specified at a level which is sufficient to ensure an acceptable level of taxation of cross-border savings'.

How will the 'acceptable level' be calculated and agreed?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3563/97, E-3564/97, E-3565/97, E-3566/97 and E-3567/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member both to its new communication of 5 November 1997 ((COM(97) 564 final. )) and the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting of 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.

Within these conclusions, the Council approved a text on the taxation of savings containing four points that might form the basis for a new proposal for a directive.

As was anticipated by the Commission in its own above mentioned communication, it is the Commission's intention to present such a proposal very quickly, in principle by April 1998.

The Commission considers it premature to comment at the present stage on the sensitive and delicate questions raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is still reflecting and its position will be clearly stated in the proposal for a directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3502/97 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Bribery in EU Member States

In 1985 in Abidjan, a British man employed by BT was murdered; evidence associated with his murder indicates that the aid project he was working on was being subjected to corrupt practice.

Given the differences that exist in the standards of commercial conduct operating within the EU, what can the European Union do to ensure that all Member States discourage bribery and corruption by firms operating within their territories and in their international operations? What can the European Union do to encourage all Member States to make bribery a criminal and civil offence, and to end tax breaks for bribery?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The Commission is giving its full attention to the problem raised by the Honourable Member. It sent a communication to the Council and Parliament in May 1997 on 'a Union policy against corruption' ((COM (97) 192 final. )), the aim of which is to frame an anti-corruption strategy both within and outside the Community. It analyses the problems of corruption and criminal law and the tax deductibility of bribes and proposes practical measures. In addition it addresses the peculiar problems of corruption in external aid and cooperation.

In its development cooperation policy the Commission is continuing work on combating corruption, notably by preparing a communication on good governance as part of the implementation of Article 5 of the fourth Lomé Convention and by seeking to strengthen the anti-corruption clauses in the Commission's contractual links with aid recipients and bodies implementing aid programmes. This work is being coordinated by the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF. A Council common position of 6 October 1997 was adopted on the strength of Article K3 on the Treaty of European Union concerning negotiations on corruption within the Council of Europe and the OECD ((OJ L 279, 13.10.1997. )). The negotiation of an OECD convention on the fight against corruption by foreign officials in international commercial transactions, was completed on 20 November 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2729/97 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission (30 July 1997)

Subject: Compensation scheme for Dutch filling station managers on the Belgian and German borders

It appears that on 23 July 1997 a scheme came into force for Dutch filling station managers on the Belgian and German borders which compensates them for the losses suffered from an increase in tax on petrol in the Netherlands.

Can the Commission say whether this scheme, which is not generally applicable to the Netherlands but is geographically restricted to the border areas, is in line with European rules on competition?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (16 February 1998)

Further to its answer of 11 September 1997 ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 133. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Dutch authorities have notified an aid (N 558/97) in favour of Dutch petrol stations located near the German border on 18 August 1997. Natural or legal persons, partnerships or limited partnerships, for whose account one or several petrol stations are operated and their successors are eligible for the subsidy. The purpose of this aid is to compensate the owners of these service stations for the alleged decline in turnover resulting from the increase in excise duty on light oil that took effect on 1 July 1997 in the Netherlands. The duration of the aid project is three years maximum, until 1 July 2000.

On 22 September 1997, the Commission asked for further information in order to examine: (i) to what extent the notified measures are likely to distort competition in other Member States, in particular in Germany and in Belgium; and (ii) whether the aid could have an accumulative effect. Moreover, doubts exist concerning the compatibility of these contracts with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements ((OJ L 173, 30.6.1983. )). The Dutch authorities replied on 30 October 1997. On 17 December 1997, the Commission asked for further information as the Dutch government had not satisfactorily answered all the questions raised in the Commission letter of 22 September 1997. At present, the Commission cannot define its position as it is awaiting the reply of the Dutch government to its letter of 17 December 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4103/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Implementing the super levy in Italy

1. Is the Commission aware of reports that the Italian government is prepared to pay 80% of the super levy payable by milk producers?

2. If these reports are correct, does this not ignore the point of the super levy which is that the primary producer himself is responsible if he exceeds his milk quota?

3. Furthermore, does the Commission not think that dairy farmers in all Member States should satisfy the same requirements for the milk quota system, and can the Commission say to what extent the system currently in force in Italy satisfies this?

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

On 4 December 1997, the Italian authorities notified the Commission of a Decree-Law providing for the reimbursement to producers of approximately 80% of the additional levy in the milk and milk products sector collected in 1996/97. Under Italian legislation that instrument, which entered into force on 2 December 1997, had to be discussed by Parliament and converted into a law. This was duly done by Parliament on 23 January 1998. Meanwhile, the Commission asked the Italian authorities to forward their comments without delay.

The Commission completely agrees that producers must pay the additional levy to comply with Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector ((OJ L 405, 31.12.1992. )) if they exceed their individual reference quantities. Any suspected infringement will be subject to a close examination by the Commission and will give rise, in the event of non-compliance, to the initiation of infringement proceedings, and this was in fact done on 12 January 1998 against Italy. Italy has a month in which to reply to the comments and to comply with them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3852/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Pollution by the DEI in Greece

The region of Ammoudara in Linoperamata near Herakleion in Crete is the site of an electricity generating plant operated by the Greek Public Electricity Board (DEI). Local inhabitants and people working in the region allege that emissions and waste from this plant are causing the catastrophic pollution of the natural environment and the atmosphere of this region which is of outstanding natural beauty: this is greatly damaging tourism which is the mainstay of the local economy. Despite repeated assurances by the competent authorities that measures will be taken to remedy this situation, a number of years have gone by without any action being taken.

Will the Commission say whether the operation of this plant in the region in question is in keeping with Community environmental legislation - and if not what should be done to remedy the situation - and whether it will agree to funding appropriate measures, such as the removal of the plant from this region or even the fitting of filters in its flues so as to solve this serious problem, or at least reduce it to a bearable level?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it is aware of these allegations and has already taken action by registering a complaint on this issue. The Commission is examining the allegations pursuant to the provisions of Community law and will seek for more information from the Greek authorities.

In particular, the Commission will examine the case of degradation of the environment due to air pollution caused by the operation of the energy plant of the Public power corporation (PPC) in contradiction to Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994 amending Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 concerning the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the atmosphere from large combustion plants ((OJ L 337, 24.12.1994. )) and Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants ((OJ L 188, 16.7.1984. )).

In case a breach of Community law is established, the Commission will launch the infringement procedure of article 169 of the EC Treaty. The Commission would welcome any further information in order to be able to reach a decision on the issue.

However, it is important to note that the complainants have the possibility to seek for administrative remedies before the Greek authorities or for a judicial review under the Greek law before the competent court, a possibility which they should be encouraged to use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/97 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (26 November 1997)

Subject: EU funding of humane trap testing

In accordance with Annex I, Part IV of the proposed Agreement on international humane trapping standards between the European Community. Canada and the Russian Federation (97/C 207/11) ((OJ C 207, 8.7.1997, p. 14. )), the European Community agrees to undertake a specific research programme to '... improve scientific knowledge in the field of evaluation of the welfare of trapped animals ...'. The proposed scientific EC research programme relates to Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and is to be undertaken within a three year time-frame.

Can the Commission indicate the budget line from which this research is to be funded: confirm that any such research will conform strictly with the requirements of Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )), indicate the likely start date for this research; and explain the exact nature of the research to be undertaken and the number of animals to be used?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

Under Article 9 and Part IV of Annex I to the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards between the European Community, Canada and the Russian Federation, the signatories have undertaken to promote and encourage research that can be used to develop these standards. The research carried out by each of the signatories will be coordinated by the Joint Management Committee provided for in Article 14 of the Agreement.

The Community has undertaken to carry out research on the ondatha zibethicus (musk rat) within three years of the entry into force of the Agreement. The research will be part-financed by the Commission under the appropriate budget headings, which have not yet been identified.

The procedure for promoting such research will be started as soon as possible after entry into force of the Agreement, i.e. 60 days after the last instrument of ratification, conclusion or adoption has been submitted in accordance with the rules applicable to each signatory. The Commission confirms that the terms of reference for this research will specify that it must be conducted in accordance with relevant Community law, and in particular Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, to which the Honourable Member refers. As specified in point 6.1 of Part IV of Annex I, the main focus of the research will be on the relevance of certain behavioural and physiological indicators in evaluating the welfare of trapped animals, with a view to developing the humane trapping standards contained in the Agreement. It is too early to say how many animals will have to be used for the research, since that depends on the research design.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4064/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: IRAP

The Italian Finance Minister has brought in a new tax, 'IRAP', which does not exist in any other European country. It is calculated not on the basis of revenue from production as in the rest of Europe, but on the basis of the costs incurred in production, including labour and investment costs.

Can the Commission assess whether this may obstruct the attempts at fiscal harmonization currently under way in the EU?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4063/97 and E-4064/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

According to the available information, the gross tax base for the new local tax called IRAP (Imposta regionale sulle attivitá produttive) will normally include the sum of gross income from sales and services rendered by the taxpayer. The IRAP net tax base could be different from net income as a consequence of the non-deductibility of certain categories of costs.

The Commission would recall that, apart from the two 1990 directives 90/434/CE of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States ((OJ L 225, 20.8.1990. )) and 90/435/CE of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States1, there is no harmonisation at the Community level in the field of direct taxation. Any further step in this direction, even for an improved functioning of the internal market, requires a unanimous decision of the Council under Article 100 of the EC Treaty.

Therefore, the Member States are substantially free to choose and design their systems of direct taxation, subject only to the condition that the general obligations arising from the Treaty, in particular those of non-discrimination and equal treatment, are respected. On the basis of the question raised by the Honourable Member, these obligations do not appear at first sight to be affected by the introduction of the IRAP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3999/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Harmonization of taxation systems

In the light of its commitment to the free movement of workers and the obvious problems caused by Member States retaining their individual responsibilities for taxation, is the Commission considering the harmonization of taxation and social security systems with a view to attaining this objective?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (4 February 1998)

The Commission assumes that the Honourable Member's question regarding taxation systems is concerned with income tax since he refers in it to the free movement of workers.

On the matter of harmonisation of income tax at Community level, the Commission considers that, particularly in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, general harmonisation is not possible in the foreseeable future. This does not, of course, mean that the Commission will not present any relevant proposals in specific fields such as the free movement of workers, where it has already put forward proposals in the past ((Commission recommendation of 21 December 1993 on the taxation of certain items of income received by non-residents in a Member State other than that in which they are resident (OJ L 39, 10.2.1994). )), with a view to ensuring compliance with the principle of non-discrimination as referred to by the Court of Justice in Schumacker (Case C-279/93).

As regards social security, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the relevant Community rules ((Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - OJ L 28, 30.1.1997. )) are aimed solely at coordinating, and not harmonising, the different social security systems in Member States. As the Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions ((See, for example, Case 161/97 Van Munster [1994] ECR 466. )), it is for the Member States to determine the structure and characteristics of their social security systems. The continuing disparities between systems are a function of national objectives, as regards both the conditions for granting assistance and the level of benefits, which must comply with the principles laid down in the EC Treaty, including equality of treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Commission does not intend to propose any harmonisation of Member States' social security systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4123/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Advisory Committees

How many non-comitology (Advisory) Committees is DG XI responsible for and what are they?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

The Directorate general for environment, nuclear safety and civil protection is responsible for the following advisory committees:

- European consultative forum on the environment and sustainable development (Commission Decision 97/307/EC of 16 May 1997 ((OJ L 131, 23.5.1997.)));

- consultative committee for the implementation of the Community action plan in the field of radioactive waste (Council Resolution of 18 February 1980 ((OJ C 51, 19.2.1980.)), renewed Council Resolution of 15 June 1992 ((OJ C 158, 25.6.1992.)));

- advisory committee on the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea (Commission Decision 80/686/EEC of 25 June 1980 ((OJ L 188, 22.7.1980.)));

- advisory committee on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (Commission Decision 90/67/EEC of 9 February 1990 ((OJ L 44, 20.2.1990.)));

- scientific advisory committee to examine the toxicity and ecotoxicity of chemical compounds (Commission Decision of 28 June 1978 ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1978.)));

- consultative committee on waste management (Commission Decision of 21 April 1976 ((OJ L 114, 1.5.1976.))).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4012/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Pesticide residues in grapes

Is the Commission aware that several varieties of European grapes have been discovered on the German market with more than the permitted pesticide content? Öko Test in Germany tested 30 different grape varieties, several of which exceeded the permitted pesticide-residue levels, in some cases by over 100%.

Does the Commission believe that existing inspection arrangements are effective in guaranteeing consumers safe products?

Does the Commission recognize the problem that total pesticide levels in fruit can far exceed the permitted limit values for individual substances?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that consumers are not thus receiving such large quantities of pesticides when they eat fruit?

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

The Commission is aware that during 1996 the German authorities examined 188 samples of table grapes and that pesticide levels above the maximum residue level (MRL) were detected in four of these. In one sample, residues of two pesticides at levels above their respective MRLs were detected.

The four samples with levels over the MRL were from consignments of grapes produced in Member States and it is understood that the German authorities informed the authorities of the originating Member State directly of these infringements.

The Commission considers that the amendments to Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables ((OJ L 350, 14.12.1990. )) made by Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and certain products of plan origin, including fruit and vegetables ((OJ L 184, 12.7.1997. )), due to be implemented by the Member States by 31 December 1998, will provide a framework for increased effectiveness of the arrangements for inspection and monitoring of pesticide residues. The Commission intends to make the detailed implementing rules necessary for the proper functioning of the amended provisions before that date.