ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2364/99

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Bohunice nuclear power station

According to reports in the Austrian media, a study commissioned by the Austrian government from the University institute for risk assessment into safety at the Bohunice power station in Slovakia reveals that Slovakia has apparently misinformed not only Austria but also the European Commission. The study also indicates that the planned upgrading measures, on the basis of which Slovakia justified its postponement of the closure date from 2006 to 2008, have not been fully implemented. Among other things, defects representing a threat to public safety have been located in the reactor core areas of both units.

1. Has the Austrian government notified the Commission of this study?

2. If so, when was the Commission informed and to what extent?

3. If not, what does the Commission's intend to do about this state of affairs, in view of the forthcoming accession negotiations with Slovakia?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The Austrian Government has recently transmitted a copy of the study to the Commission.

A first analysis does not support the view that the Commission has been misinformed by the Slovak authorities. It is particularly known to the Commission that the reconstruction programme at Bohunice V1 will only be completed in 2000.

The Commission will further examine the study and will thoroughly discuss any previously unavailable information with the appropriate Slovak authorities.

Prior and during the accession negotiations, the Commission will continue to closely follow the developments regarding nuclear safety in the Slovak Republic, in particular the fulfilment of the commitment for the early closure of Bohunice V1 in 2006/2008.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2090/99

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 1999)

Subject: Appointment of a Union special representative for Tibet

The Commission is surely aware of Parliament's resolutions of 13 July 1995(1), 15 January 1998(2), and 14 May 1998(3) on the situation in Tibet.

In addition to condemning the illegal Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet, the resolutions explicitly call on the Council and Commission to appoint an EU special representative for Tibet, who would be responsible for doing everything possible to carry out the Union's demands as regards the civil and political rights situation in Tibet.

Parliament, the Commission, and numerous European Prime Ministers have assured the Dalai Lama that they care about the human and civil rights situation in Tibet and wish to see genuine negotiations opened between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities, with no preconditions on either side.

Furthermore, Parliament has repeatedly asked for news of the world's youngest political prisoner, Gedhun Choeky Nyima, the 10-year-old Tibetan boy abducted by the Chinese authorities at the age of 6 after the Dalai Lama had recognised him to be the latest reincarnation of Tibet's second most important spiritual leader, the Panchen Lama.

1. Will the Commission take the practical policy step of appointing a Union special representative for Tibet?

2. Will the Union act on the promises made to the Dalai Lama as regards the human rights situation in Tibet and the opening of genuine negotiations between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities?

3. Can the Commission exert pressure on the Chinese authorities to secure the release of Gedhun Choeky Nyima, Nawang Chophel, and Nawang Sandrol, now being held as political prisoners?

(1) OJ C 249, 25.9.1995, p. 162.

(2) OJ C 34, 2.2.1998, p. 169.

(3) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 223.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The issue of Tibet has been one of the most pressing issues in the Commission's political dialogue and dialogue on human rights with China. The EU has taken a constructive and consistent approach to the matter, which has involved calling insistently for the cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the Tibetan people to be respected. Furthermore, the Union also regularly calls for the reopening of a direct

dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities. The Commission for its part remains determined to promote cooperation projects of direct benefit to the local population in Tibet. The situation of Tibetan political prisoners has also been brought up by the Commission on a number of occasions, most notably at the last meeting of the EU-China dialogue on human rights in Beijing on 19 October.

The Commission believes that this approach to the Tibetan problem is the most appropriate one at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2526/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Albania's membership of the WTO

According to information from a variety of sources, the EU as a body has concluded that Albania meets the requirements for membership of the WTO and has therefore decided to support the country's application to join that organisation. However, it now appears that one of the Member States (France) has said within the WTO that it is not in favour of allowing Albania to join.

Can the Commission confirm this information? Will it provide full clarification in respect of a matter which may be regarded, from several points of view, as extremely serious?

If the information proves to be accurate, what action would the Commission take in order to bring the Member State concerned into line with the decision taken by the Union?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2000)

The accession of Albania to the World trade organisation (WTO) is in its final stages and could be completed soon. This accession has proceeded very rapidly in the course of this year thanks to the efforts of the Albanian authorities and of the Community.

Albania has shown a great determination to apply WTO consistent rules in its legislation. Discussions with the interested parties continue with a view to finalising the negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2861/99

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Common VAT system eighth directive

In Question No 2083/90(1), Mr Fernand Herman put the following question to the Commission: In the United Kingdom, the Crown, local authorities and similar bodies can obtain VAT refunds on supplies of goods and services which they purchase, as well as the VAT paid on imported goods, provided these supplies or imports are not intended for activities which are subject to VAT (non-business purposes) or are partially exempt from VAT. This procedure, known as the refund scheme is applied irrespective of whether or not the bodies concerned are liable to the tax. Does this procedure comply with the sixth VAT Directive?

Why has the Commission only given a provisional and incomplete reply, without ever providing a definitive answer to the question?

Following on from my predecessor's question, does the Commission consider that public bodies in other Member States can also benefit from this procedure and could ask HM Customs and Excise to refund VAT on the basis of the eighth directive for goods and services obtained in the UK on which local VAT may have been charged?

(1) OJ C 164, 24.6.1991, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The common VAT system provides that the Member States, regions, counties, municipalities and other bodies governed by public law are not normally considered liable to VAT on activities or operations they engage in as public authorities. Accordingly, no VAT is due on those activities or operations.

However, goods and services supplied by taxable persons to Member States, regions, counties, municipalities and other bodies governed by public law, as well as goods imported by them, are subject to VAT.

As they are not liable to VAT on activities or operations engaged in by them as public authorities, Member States, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law are not entitled to deduction of VAT paid on the purchase of goods and services. Of course, their non-taxable status also makes them ineligible for the refund, under the procedure provided for by the eighth Directive(1), of VAT paid in a Member State other than that of establishment.

To prevent VAT considerations influencing whether public authorities carry out certain operations themselves or privatise them, several Member States, including the UK, have introduced a scheme of total or partial refund of VAT paid by public bodies on purchases of goods and services. It is important to note that this entails a purely financial operation between different public bodies and is governed by the respective national policy for the financing of public authorities.

Consequently, such a scheme does not conflict with the sixth VAT Directive(2).

(1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.

(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: International child abduction

Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children (COM(1999) 220), which relates to child abduction states that the courts with jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 3 (Parental responsibility) shall exercise their jurisdiction in conformity with the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Do Member States currently inform their citizens of the implications and powers of this Hague Convention in, for example, passports or literature relating to living abroad? Will this situation change with the introduction of the proposed Council regulation?

Is the Commission aware of the degree of compliance by Member States with the terms of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children(1) states that the international jurisdiction for which it provides is to be exercised in conformity with the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, and in particular Articles 3 and 16 thereof. In other words, an authority or a court of a Member State which is a priori competent by virtue of the spouses' joint child being habitually resident in that Member State (Article 3 of the draft Regulation) may not take measures relating to parental responsibility before a decision under the Hague Convention is taken as to whether the child should be returned or not, if that habitual residence is the consequence of the child being wrongfully removed or retained.

The Commission has no information on the steps taken by Member States to inform their nationals of the implications and effects of this Convention. The adoption of the Regulation will create no obligations for the Member States to provide information; the information measures mentioned by the Honourable Member remain within the competence of the Member States. The Commission can, however, indicate that the Hague Conference regularly organises meetings of all the Central Authorities designated to monitor the implementation of the Convention, and seminars intended to raise the awareness of national judges as to how it operates.

The Commission is not informed about cases of possible non-compliance with the Convention in question. It would add that the Convention leaves some margin of discretion for the national authorities requested to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained, particularly when the child has become settled in its new environment (Article 12) or if the return of the child would expose it to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13).

(1) COM(1999) 220 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2051/99

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Activities of the Astano shipyards, in Galicia

In its reply to a question which I tabled (E-1432/99(1)) about the repercussions of the Spanish Government's privatisation plans on the prohibition on shipbuilding activities applying to the Astano shipyards, the Commission stated that any change of ownership of Astano would have no effect on the limitations placed on its activities.

Will the Commission explain the legal and political justification for such a statement, given that the reason for the prohibition was that the publicly-owned Spanish shipyards continued to benefit from State aids?

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 66.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The Commission has, in its reply given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1432/99(1), to which the Honourable Member refers, explained the conditions attached to restucturing aid for the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain. However it may be helpful if the Commission tries further to clarify the basis for the current restrictions on Astano's activities.

In the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring(2), allowing a derogation from the state aid rules laid down in Council Directive 90/0684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding(3) to enable a further and final restructuring of the publicly-owned yards in Spain, it is clearly stated that proposed capacity reductions under their restructuring plan will be supplemented by the continued non-reopening to shipbuilding of the Astano yard. In the absence of any indications in the Regulation to the contrary, it is evident that this restriction is not limited in time and applies to the yard as such irrespective of its ownership. This is underlined by the fact that the same paragraph of the preamble to the Regulation in contrast refers to the Astander yard not carrying out ship conversions as long as it remains in public ownership. It was only on the basis of these and the other conditions laid down in the Regulation that the Council was able to agree to the derogation.

These conditions were reiterated in the Commission's final decision(4) approving the restructuring aid package, paragraphs 29 and 35 of which refer to the position of Astano.

As was explained in the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's previous question, the limits on the yards' shipbuilding production capability were a necessary counterpart for the substantial amount of aids approved in order to minimise the possible distortions to intra-Community competition.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.

(3) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.

(4) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/99

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Sugar quota for the Autonomous Region of the Azores

The Act of Accession of Portugal to the European Union, point XIV(c), Vol. II, pp. 210-213, laid down a quota of 10 000 tonnes of beet sugar for the sugar-producing undertaking situated in the Autonomous Region of the Azores, coupled with the right to import a volume of unrefined sugar equal to the difference between actual production and 20 000 tonnes, subject to payment of a reduced levy.

However, Regulation (EEC) 3484/92(1) of 27 November 1992 reduced the above quantity to 10 000 tonnes, the figure likewise specified in Regulation (EEC) 1600/92(2).

More recently, the Commission has interpreted the rules in force in such a way as to cut the quantity again, to 6 500 tonnes of refined sugar produced from imported unrefined sugar, and, moreover, is not ruling out the possibility of proposals for further reductions in the quota for the Azores.

Does the Commission believe that this systematic step-by-step reduction in sugar refining quotas for the Azores is compatible with Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty?

(1) OJ L 353, 3.12.1992, p. 8.

(2) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

Before the Poseima programme, the sugar industry in the Azores was authorised to refine raw sugar amounting to 20 000 tonnes less the production of sugar from local sugar beet. Following the introduction of the Poseima specific supply arrangements permitting the import of raw beet sugar at world market prices (or providing equivalent aid if Community raw quota sugar is used), this authorisation was restricted to a maximum of 10 000 tonnes of sugar to meet the needs of the Azores on preferential terms.

Within these limits, each year the Commission draws up the forecast supply balances of the needs of the Azores and fixes the quantities to be imported, principally with regard to the local production of beet sugar. At 6 500 tonnes for 1999/2000 (the same as in 1998/99), the maximum quota for sugar production has not fallen. The maximum quota may always be used for the local production of beet sugar; only the import of raw sugar is limited under the specific supply arrangements.

It is therefore not correct to talk of a systematic step-by-step reduction in sugar refining quotas for the Azores and the Commission therefore does not consider application of the Poseima programme to be incompatible with Article 299(2) (formerly Article 227) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1887/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Animal welfare implications of the growth hormone rBST

Will the Commission insist that the relevant committees study all evidence concerning the specific impact on animal health of the growth hormone rBST in the context of any application by the company which owns this drug for a licence to sell for use within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

The scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare gave its opinion on 10 March 1999 on the risk assessment on bovine somatotrophin (BST). The conclusion of the report is that BST should not be administered to dairy cows because it can cause serious health problems (e.g. mastitis, foot and leg disorders) as well as adversely affecting reproduction.

Unless a company or scientific research brings new elements to light leading to reconsideration, the risk assessment on BST on animal health and welfare aspects has been completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Transport of live animals

Is the Commission aware of reports that France is reported by the RSPCA still to be in non-compliance with the EU Directive (95/0029/EC)(1) on the transport of live animals?

Can the Commission say what has been the effect of the continued infringement proceedings against France pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty for failure to notify the necessary measures to implement the Directive and what steps are being taken to ensure strict compliance with European Union law?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 1999)

The infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against France involve the incomplete transposition of Council Directive 95/0029/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 90/0628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport.

The Commission brought the case before the Court of justice on 15 June 1999.

The French authorities have in the meantime informed the Commission that the legislation to ensure complete transposition of the Directive is under preparation.

After an inspection by the Commission a specific report has been issued. In the report, which is available on the Web site of the Directorate general for health and consumer protection(1), a number of recommendations are addressed to France in relation to the unsatisfactory aspects. The Commission intends to pursue the matter if France does not remedy the deficiencies.

(1) Web address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2404/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Uptake of funds for the RETEX Community Initiative

Under the most recent Community support framework (1993-1999) Portugal was to benefit from the RETEX Community Initiative for diversifying regions heavily dependent on the textile and clothing industry.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- What were the amounts allocated to Portugal and the other Member States and what are the figures for funds actually paid out, broken down by Member State, under the RETEX initiative in 1993-1999?

- What projects were funded in Portugal during this period under RETEX? What was their duration and what funding did they receive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: School milk scheme

Can the Commission indicate whether it has plans to abolish or cut the subsidised school milk scheme? This scheme is of particular benefit to children in poorer areas, notably as a source of calcium, and to local milk producers.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1999)

The Commission can confirm that it has initiated a discussion about the role of the Community in the distribution of milk at schools and its financial participation in particular. The background for this initiative is the need for a regular critical examination of support measures that imply considerable budgetary charges for the Community. In the case of the Community school milk programme, expenditure amounts to more than 100 million.

It is against this background that the Commission contracted an external evaluation study, whose conclusions are rather critical as to the cost-effectiveness of the measure. In the meantime, the conclusions of this study have been the subject of further discussions and consultations.

On the basis of these reflections, the Commission will consider submitting a legislative proposal on the future of the scheme, to be decided by the Council in consultation with the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1576/99

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Regional Development Programme (RDP)

What is the position of the Commission with regard to RDPs for the period 2000-2006 submitted by Member States with Objective 1 regions without the requisite political, institutional and social dialogue having taken place?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), Member States submit their regional development plans after consultation with the partners as defined in Article 8 of that Regulation (regional and local authorities and other public authorities, economic and social partners, other relevant

organisations). Each Member State decides its own arrangements for consulting the most representative partners as designated by it. However, the Commission reserves the right to ask a Member State how it went about consulting the partners and it must offer an account of how it did so under Article 16(1)(d) of the Regulation. The Commission will make use of this option whenever necessary.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.