ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2209/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: VAT on safety helmets and hats in the UK

With reference to Annex H to the Sixth Directive on goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT and to the Commission's document entitled VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the European Community, wherein the UK Government's zero rate of VAT for motor cycle and pedal cycle helmets is recorded, would the Commission please clarify what category in Annex H the UK Government used to justify application of VAT at 0 % for these items?

Could the Commission further give its opinion on whether safety hats used by horse riders could be covered by the definitions used by the UK Government to give motor cycle and pedal cycle helmets entitlement to zero-rated VAT?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Under Community value added tax (VAT) legislation, Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC(1)) lays down that Member States may apply a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex H of that directive. As this Annex H does not cover safety helmets, the standard VAT rate should apply to them.

In addition to this, in the course of negotiations of the Directive, or as part of their negotiations for joining the Community, certain Member States have retained separate rules in specific areas, an example in the United Kingdom being the zero-rates. These rules provide that Member States who applied exceptional rates on 1 January 1991 may continue to apply such rates for a further transitional period, under the conditions lay down in Article 28 of the Sixth VAT Directive. These rules are transitional, pending the adoption in Council, by unanimous decision, of a definitive VAT system under which far greater harmonisation is required. The Council has to date been reticent to adopt such changes.

As an exception to the normal rules, which foresee that the standard VAT rate should apply to any taxable transaction as a consumption tax, to avoid distortion of competition, provisions concerning reduced rates should be construed in the most restrictive way. For zero-rates, this applies all the more because they are specific derogations granted to some Member States.

The Commission is of the view that the current United Kingdom zero-rates could not be extended to cover safety hats worn by horse riders.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Directive 2002/38/EC OJ L 128, 15.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3271/02

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: EAGGF Guarantee Section payments and processed tomatoes.

What monies, by Member State, did the EAGGF Guarantee Section pay out for processed tomato subsidies (heading B0-1511) for the last five seasons (not financial years)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3261/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Capacity for maintaining the rule of law in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands the police have been notified of 1,3 million criminal offences, that only 14,6 % of them have been solved and that two thirds of the offences of which the police are notified are not investigated at all?

2. Is not this state of affairs an affront to people's sense of justice, and does it not call into question the quality of the rule of law in the Netherlands?

3. If the Copenhagen criteria for applicant countries were to be applied to the Netherlands, would it not face serious problems because of the above facts?

4. If a European judicial stability pact existed, would it not be appropriate for the Netherlands to be shown the yellow card by way of warning and for a discussion to be held between the Commission and the Netherlands Government about these alarming facts? And ought not the capacity of the Netherlands' judiciary to be dramatically increased in consequence?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

1. It is not the duty of the Commission to be aware of the precise statistics relating to offences committed and crimes solved in the Member States, nor the decisions by national police forces not to investigate offences notified to them. This follows from Article 33 (ex Article K.5) of the Treaty on European Union which provides This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

2. Pursuant to Article 33 of the Treaty on the European Union, cited above, even allowing that these statistics are accurate, it is entirely a matter for the authorities in the Netherlands.

3. The Treaty on the European Union requires Member States to respect fundamental rights (Article 6) and provides sanctions in the event that a Member State is found to be in breach of that obligation (Article 7). The fact that no investigation has been requested in relation to the Netherlands suggests that the Netherlands is not prima facie in breach of the obligation to respect fundamental rights.

4. This part of the question calls for conjecture since no such European judicial stability pact exists. The Commission is being invited to criticise the judicial system of a Member State and this is not appropriate. It is not the role of the Commission to intervene in such cases. The Hhonourable Member should take the matter up directly with the appropriate Dutch authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3866/02

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Appointments to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

On 12 April 2002 Dr Carlo Perucci, then a member of the EMCDDA Scientific Committee, was informed by the Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs that he was being relieved of his duties as of April 2002.

Nevertheless Dr Perucci continued to be summoned regularly to meetings of the Scientific Committee until November 2002.

In December 2002 he was considered as no longer holding office and was replaced seven months before the end of his term of office,

In view of the fact that the term of office of members of the EMCDDA Scientific Committee is three years and can be renewed, does the Commission not consider that the early termination of Dr Perucci's appointment constitutes an infringement of that principle?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 of 8 February 1993 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the Scientific Committee of that Centre consists of one representative from each Member State appointed for a three-year period.

Since the Member States appoint the members of the Scientific Committee, they may also relieve them of their duties.

The Commission cannot legally intervene in the composition of the Scientific Committee or in the appointment of Member States' representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3397/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Decrease in the land area under vines in Italy

According to recent press reports, the area under vines in Italy has shrunk by more than 20 % virtually overnight. According to new Italian statistical surveys, the total area under vines is now no more than 675 000 ha; in 1990, it was 862 400 ha. This drastic reduction in the area under vines in Italy is prompting speculation and suspicions in a variety of directions.

Can the Commission therefore say what figures it has for the annual decrease in land area under vines in Italy between 1990 and 2000, what form the decrease actually took, and in which regions and for which vine varieties there were changes in land area under vines during that period?

What subsidies were paid to Italian vineyards each year between 1990 and 2000 on the basis of which areas under vine, and what was the position with regard to distillation of Italian wines in that 10-year period?

Whether it sees a link with increased sales of Italian wines and cultivation on non-legalised land, and what action it proposes to take to eliminate any such improper practices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The Commission cannot confirm the figures that the Honourable Member advances.

Under the common market organisation arrangements for wine, as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999(1), Member States were directed to provide the Commission with an inventory of their production potential.

For Italy the figures showed an area under vines of 792 440 ha at the beginning of the 1999/00 wine production year: 263 817 ha for production of quality wines produced in specified regions (QWPSR) and 526 623 ha for production of table wines.

The corresponding figures for 1990/91 were 936 457 ha: 228 525 ha for QWPSR and 707 932 ha for table wines.

A fall of 16 % (26 % for table wines) is therefore indicated over the last ten years.

If the Honourable Member's figures are confirmed the Commission will not fail to question Italy about the discrepancies.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2467/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Aid C35/02 adaptation of the national tax system to the specific characteristics of the Azores

The author of this question calls on the Commission once again to supply an answer to his question E-1703/02(1). Instead of an answer proper, he has to date received only the following note: The Honourable Member's request will be dealt with pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

The question was concerned was, obviously, tabled pursuant to that regulation which has been in force since 3 December 2001 and it is on the strength of that same regulation that the author continues to expect an answer.

The existence of the documents concerned has been made public, on the Commission's initiative, in the Official Journal. It should be obvious that there can be no question of invoking Article 4 of the above-mentioned Regulation, and indeed the Commission has on no occasion done so.

In view of the above, the author of this question stresses that he is awaiting an answer to his question E-1703/02, pursuant of course to Regulation No 1049/2001.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 129.

(2) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2002)

The Commission has carefully examined the Honourable Member's question regarding a request for access to the correspondence exchanged between its departments and the Portuguese authorities as part of the preliminary investigation of a state aid scheme. However, it can merely confirm that such a request will have to be dealt with pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents and in accordance with the appropriate procedures.

The Commission will be contacting the Honourable Member in the very near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3752/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Palladium

In its next version of Windows, Microsoft wants to incorporate a virtual lock called Palladium. Microsoft claims that this will protect PCs against viruses and filter spam. It may also provide a means of preventing the illegal copying of software. Palladium is also supposed to provide PCs with a unique identification code. There is a fear that an identification code of this nature developed by Microsoft will make the running of competitors' software impossible.

1. How will the Commission ensure that Microsoft does not misuse Palladium in order to eliminate competitors? Will Palladium jeopardise the development of free software/open source development?

2. PCs equipped with Palladium will be able to operate only with Palladium-compatible software. It is lawful for a company which itself sells software to make the rules relating thereto? Does not the Commission see it as its role as the authority in charge of competition issues to lay down the requisite rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

1. The Commission is aware of Microsoft's Palladium initiative. This project is still in its early stages. As such, and in the absence of any formal complaint, the Commission is not investigating Palladium. The Commission is nevertheless fully aware of the potential impact of technologies such as Palladium on a range of areas, including the development of open source software, user control and user rights issues, privacy issues and content provision. The Commission is committed to act within its powers in favour of innovation and is actively engaged in dialogue with all parties expressing views on Palladium.

2. Palladium is not currently incorporated in any Microsoft products on the market, and it is therefore premature for the Commission to make an assessment of its effects. As the authority in charge of competition issues, the Commission is committed to ensuring that conduct in the market is in compliance with the Community's anti-trust rules, such that market outcomes which are beneficial to consumers, competition and innovation are attained.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Grant for 2001 under Item B7-6200, Forests and Environment

Can the Commission confirm that it could not commit the entire appropriation for 2001 from Item B7-6200, Forests and Environment, because of delays resulting from poor communication between DG Development, DG Environment and the EuropeAid Cooperation Office services, with the result that the resources allocated for sustainable management of the forest ecosystems in Central Africa were significantly reduced?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The Commission regrets that part of the 2001 appropriation for budget line B7-6200 could not be committed. In fact, given the importance of the subject and the fact that certain proposals had almost completed the approval procedure, the services agreed the exceptional measure of carrying over EUR 7 million of the allocated amount, which would otherwise have been lost to the programme.

The Commission fully recognises the importance of the ecosystems in Central Africa and continues to support the conservation and sustainable management of the forests in the Congo Basin. In fact, the two proposals for forest ecosystems in the Congo Basin which were not approved in 2001 have subsequently been adopted, so the resources allocated to this region have not been significantly reduced.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3727/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Enriched cages for egg-laying hens

Is the Commission aware of the 1989 study by Dawkins and Hardie that shows that hens require, on average, 1 272 square centimetres in which to turn, 893 for wing-stretching and 1 876 for wing-flapping? The EU Laying Hens Directive (1999/74/EC(1)) as currently formulated provides only for so-called enriched cages of 600 square centimetres per hen after the phasing out of conventional battery cages in 2012. Scientific literature shows that these enriched cages will offer no worthwhile welfare benefits for hens as compared to conventional ones.

It would be a tragic waste of an opportunity to advance animal welfare in Europe if the EU were to allow farmers to change from battery cages to enriched ones which do not allow hens to perform important basic behaviours.

Will the Commission therefore propose and support a ban on these enriched cages when the Hens Directive is reviewed in 2005 something which Germany has already done with effect from 2012?

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

When preparing its Report on the welfare of laying hens, the Scientific Veterinary Committee referred to, among others, the scientific study by Dawkins and Hardy from 1989 mentioned by the Honourable Member. This report, published on 30 October 1996, served the Commission as a scientific basis for the elaboration of the proposal to improve the legislation for the protection of laying hens.

Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, invites the Commission to present a report to the Council on the different farming systems for laying hens by 2005. This report will be based on a scientific opinion covering all systems in use, including enriched cages. Furthermore, the economic implications of Directive 1999/74/EC will have to be taken into account based amongst others on a comprehensive study to be financed by the Commission and to be started in 2003. On this basis the Commission will then evaluate the different options for improving the current Community legislation, if necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3319/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: EDF financing salvaging of the vessel Le Joola

Senegal is receiving EUR 209 million from the 9th EDF. Out of that sum, transport and infrastructure improvements, inter alia, have to be financed. Re-establishing the ferry link between Ziguinchor/Karabane and Dakar is of great economic importance to the Casamance region, in the south of Senegal, and to the country in general. Travelling overland is too dangerous, and travelling through The Gambia is virtually impossible.

This grant could possibly be used to salvage the Le Joola: it covers re-establishment of transport facilities. The boat is now moored at a location which is hazardous for Senegalese fishing vessels and other shipping. Furthermore, the Senegalese Government itself has stated that it regards salvaging the Le Joola as a priority.

Does the Commission agree that salvaging the Le Joola is necessary in order to restore infrastructure in the region?

Does the Commission think that, by making salvaging the Le Joola a priority, the Senegalese Government meets the ownership criterion?

Will the Commission examine whether salvaging the Le Joola can be funded under the EDF as part of transport and infrastructure improvements?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Restoring the maritime link between Dakar and Ziguinchor is of great economic and political importance for the Casamance region and Senegal in general. However, salvaging and repairing the Joola does not seem to be a cost-effective way of restoring this link and therefore alternatives will have to be found. The Government of Senegal is apparently focusing on the purchase of two new ships with the help of the German cooperation and other possible donors, which could take around two years to realize. In the interim the Government is looking for a private operator to supply and manage its own ship.

Within the framework of the 9th European Development Fund, resources have been earmarked for two major priorities, roads with regional importance and water and sanitation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3757/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Quantified environmental objectives in the transport sector

In the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme the Commission was invited, in the context of the target of an 8 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, to submit by the end of 2002 quantified environmental objectives for a sustainable transport system (Article 5(2)(d)). A Commission group of experts has proposed quantified objectives for three areas (greenhouse gases, air quality and noise).

At its meeting of 6 December 2002 the Council recognised these three areas greenhouse gases, emissions of pollutants and noise as priorities for the transport sector and stressed the need for medium- and long-term environmental targets in the transport sector.

What stage has been reached in the Commission's deliberations? When will the Commission submit a proposal for quantified environmental objectives in the transport sector?

Will the Commission keep to the schedule set in the Sixth Environment Action Programme? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

In the 2001 White Paper on the Common Transport Policy(1), the Commission noted that for achieving the ultimate objective of sustainable transport, [t]his sustainable transport system needs to be defined in operational terms in order to give the policy-makers useful information to go on. Where possible, the objectives put forward need to be quantified. The Commission plans to submit a communication in 2002 to spell out these objectives. Such an invitation was also contained in the Sixth Environment Action Programme.

The Council conclusions of 6 December 2002 mention that three areas, greenhouse gases, pollutant emissions and noise, need further actions both from Member States and the Community. Work is underway in all sectors.

In the same Council conclusions, the Council welcomes that the Commission is actively pursuing its work on the examination of possible use of indicative long-term and intermediate environmental targets for transport sector on Community level.

In the course of 2002, the Commission has worked on developing the concept of environmental targets for transport further inter alia based on advice from its Joint Expert Group on Transport and Environment, jointly managed by Directorate General (DG) Transport and Energy and DG Environment.

The present state-of-play is that discussions are still ongoing in the Commission with regard to defining an appropriate approach for setting targets. As a result, the envisaged Communication is now included in the Commission's Work Programme for 2003 and thus expected in the course of 2003. This Communication will set out general principles for the use of environmental targets for transport policy and identify those environmental problems for which such targets could be of use at Community level.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.