ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2980/97 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Admissibility of special credit card fees on purchases in other Member States

The issuers of credit cards (e.g. Eurocard-Mastercard, Visa and Barclay) charge their clients a special fee of up to 2.3% of the invoice amount every time they use their cards abroad. This makes purchases in other Member States rather more expensive. In the age of electronic payment transactions it also creates a psychological barrier to shopping in neighbouring countries: the mere fact that special fees are payable on purchases made abroad deters the customer. The damage consequently done to the internal market and the discrimination against cross-border trade and payment transactions are unmistakable. There is no objective justification for this behaviour of the card-issuing companies, since the use of a credit card in the age of advanced EDP systems generates the same costs at home and abroad. Much of the advertising of these companies, moreover, emphasizes that their cards can be used abroad, while failing to refer to the special costs that then arise.

Although the contractual clauses on which this practice is based have been declared invalid by German courts on several occasions, the card-issuing companies are not prepared to forgo these special fees. In fact, they threaten any client complaining about or taking legal action against this practice with the termination of the card contracts and actually carry out this threat. This has serious implications for the individual client, not least because the major card-issuing companies have a virtual monopoly.

Is the Commission aware of the above, and what does it intend doing to prevent as soon as possible a practice that is in contravention of European law and inappropriate to the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

The Commission is aware of the practice to which the Honourable Member refers, but has no complete overview of the actual fees applied. Indeed, according to the information at the Commission's disposal, these fees are not fixed by card organisations such as Eurocard-Mastercard or VISA, but by individual banks issuing credit cards to their customers.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that this practice can create a psychological barrier, but thinks that these fees are not in conflict with Community law, except where they would flow from agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 85 of the EC Treaty. In particular, the fixing of these fees is not, in the eyes of the Commission, a restriction in the meaning of Articles 59 or 73b of the EC Treaty. The fees are prices for services determined by offer and demand.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Purchase of a motor vehicle in EU Member States

What is the position regarding the purchase of a motor vehicle in an EU Member State for use whilst living in that Member State?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to clarify the subject of his question in order for it to be able to provide a specific answer.

It would refer the Honourable Member to its communication on procedures for the type-approval and registration of vehicles previously registered in another Member State ((OJ C 143, 15.5.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4142/97 by Francisco Sanz Fernández (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Intercultural education/Socrates programme

Will the Commission give details of the budget for 1997 allocated to Action 2 of Chapter II (Comenius) of the Socrates programme? What proportion of this budget was earmarked for the education of gypsies?

What projects intended for the education of gypsies were subsidized during 1997?

Were any other type of projects intended for gypsies subsidized within the framework of this programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1998)

In 1997 the total budget allocated to Comenius (Action 2 of Chapter II of the Socrates programme) amounted to ECU 4.8 million.

Under Comenius, the Commission has financed several projects on the education of gypsy children:

- in 1997, 13 projects were financed, with total funding of ECU 1 036 000; close to 120 partners were involved in these multiannual projects;

- in 1996, 27 projects were financed, with funding amounting to ECU 1 119 625;

- in 1995, 44 projects were financed, with funding amounting to ECU 1 173 728.

Projects are submitted to the Commission by the national agencies. At the last meeting of the national agencies, the Commission drew their attention to the number of projects submitted.

Under the Youth for Europe project, the Commission has financed 11 projects concerned with young gypsies, providing funding amounting to ECU 310 000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2424/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Health risk posed by edible salt

Over-use of salt is the greatest cause of increased blood pressure and hypertension. Increased blood pressure and hypertension are in turn the greatest and most important factors increasing the risk of a stroke. High blood pressure also increases the risk of heart attacks. Reducing the use of salt would principally mean improving the health of citizens and thus also reducing health care costs. In Finland salt has been classified as an additive since before EU membership. Accordingly the use of salt is already subject to precise regulations. No such regulations as yet exist at EU level.

How serious a health risk does the Commission consider the use of salt to be? What does it propose to do to eliminate the health risk posed by salt in Europe? Does the Commission regard salt as an additive or a foodstuff?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997)

The sodium component of salt has indeed been implicated in a number of medical conditions and diseases, but any risks are dependent upon intake, which, in turn, is mainly determined by dietary habits in general and individual choices.

Sodium chloride otherwise known as common salt is considered as food ingredient by Community legislation. Apart from the declaration of salt in the list of ingredients, sodium must be declared in nutrition labelling under certain conditions as provided by Directive 90/496/EEC on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs ((OJ L 276, 6.10.1990. )).

In addition products presented as foods for particular nutritional uses (diet foods) with low sodium content are subject to further labelling rules as stipulated in Directive 89/398/EEC relative to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses ((OJ L 186, 30.6.1989. )). The conditions for the use of the term 'low-sodium' will be harmonised at Community level in the future on the basis of the relevant report of the scientific committee for food.

Finally, in the context of the programme of Community action on health promotion, information, education and training in the framework for action in the field of public health ((OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )), action is foreseen concerning the better understanding of the role of nutrition and other life-style factors in the etiology of diseases and the dissemination of information to the public to improve understanding of basic nutritional principles and of new techniques and methods of presenting and preparing foodstuffs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3549/97 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Unfair application of excise duties on pure alcohol

Although there is a Community regulation on excise duties, application in France differs from elsewhere, leading to a flagrant distortion of competition as between home and industrial distillers.

In France, home distillers are obliged to make immediate payment of duties on the products of their distillation, whereas industrial distillers have to pay only on sale. In addition, if a member of the latter category has allowed his product to age, he is entitled to a discount on the basis of 6% degree loss per annum. The home distiller is thus clearly penalized by comparison with his industrial counterpart.

In the light of this information, does the Commission consider the application of the directives on products subject to excise duty to be fair and consistent in this particular case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3548/97 and E-3549/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

A declaration in the Council minutes concerning Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. )) states that: 'The Council and the Commission declare that Member States which have traditionally exempted the production of small quantities of alcohol produced by private individuals for their own consumption may continue to apply such exemptions'. In accordance with that declaration France has continued to exempt the production of ten litres of pure alcohol per year by individuals who have traditionally been granted that right.

Apart from this special case, duty must be charged on all spirits production. There is however, an option under Article 22 of Directive 92/83/EEC permitting Member States to charge the production of small distilleries at a reduced rate. France, along with the majority of Member States, has chosen not to take up that option.

France having made that choice, the general rules set out in Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products ((OJ L 76, 23. 3.1992. )) should apply so that, with the above exception concerning home distillation, all French distilleries are tax warehouses in which duty payment shall be suspended until the goods produced enter free circulation, and in which losses naturally occurring to the product of the distillery shall be taken into account.

Lastly, as regards the Commission's approach to future harmonization in this area, one reason why the derogations were originally permitted was because - within the parameters laid down - the tax treatment of these small producers was considered to have insufficient effect on the internal market as to demand uniformity at Community level. In the light of the Honourable Member's complaints, the Commission will keep the matter under review, but it has no present intention of seeking further to harmonize their treatment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4143/97 by Francisco Sanz Fernández (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Socrates programme

Will the Commission provide a breakdown by country of the centralized measures under the Socrates programme for 1997?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (25 February 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the study on contributions to the Community budget, transmitted to Parliament on 14 October 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: The Helms-Burton law and agreements with the United States

With regard to the application of the Helms-Burton law and its consequences and in the view of the details of the agreement between the Commission and the US Administration, does the Commission not consider that the agreement is unbalanced, since Concessions are made by the United States, whilst commitments are made by the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3686/97, E-3687/97, E-3688/97, E-3689/97 and E-3690/97 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

The understanding with the United States is not unbalanced. The Commission has brought a World trade organisation(WTO) panel procedure against the Helms-Burton Act. The Commission considers that this legislation is in violation of international law since it intends to influence (or has the effect of influencing) the behaviour of Community companies because of their involvement in Cuba. The understanding of 11 April 1997 reached between the Community and the US on the Helms-Burton Act and the D'Amato Act, by which the Community agreed to suspend its WTO case regarding the former, calls for the development of disciplines which 'should inhibit and deter the future acquisition of investments from any State which has expropriated or nationalised such investments'. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the US to work together to address and resolve through agreed principles the issue of conflicting jurisdictions and secondary boycotts. It is important to note that the discussions between the Community and the US on this point are in symmetry with the discussions on investment disciplines. These talks are currently taking place with a view to finding an acceptable deal which will trigger a waiver under title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, thereby neutralising the extraterritorial effects of this Act.

In addition, the Community made clear that no settlement of the differences over the Helms-Burton Act will be implemented unless the United States has also granted Community companies a waiver under the D'Amato Act.

The Community has reserved all rights to resume the WTO panel procedure, or begin new procedures, if measures are taken against Community companies under Helms Burton or D'Amato as a result of waivers not being granted or continued.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/97 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: European projects for the city of Granada and the Albayzín

Can the Commission provide detailed information on the projects concerning the Albayzín and Granada approved for European co-funding, some of which are alluded to in a notice in 'Carta Local', October 1997?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

In 1986 the Commission financed a conservation project in Granada for the Patio de los Leones, the Baños de Comares and the 'cubiertas planas' in the Alhambra with a total budget of ECU 200 000.

Under the Leonardo da Vinci training programme, three projects have been granted to the Granada region: a project in 1995 for a total amount of ECU 58 000 (Iliberis) and two projects in 1997 for a total amount of ECU 234 000 (European rural network for career guidance and information, and training in agriculture and the environment in rural areas).

In July 1997, on the basis of Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Regulation ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), the Commission funded an urban pilot project for the Albayzín including the Alhambra palace. The total eligible cost of this project is ECU 6 051 150, and the ERDF funds available for the project are ECU 2 953 897.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3844/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Exceptional authorization granted by the EU to Finland on the import of alcohol

Finland has obtained an exceptional authorization to limit its imports of alcohol from the EU area until the end of 2003, when imports should comply with the standards applying in the rest of the EU. In Finland there is still a fierce political debate about whether it is right that the EU should dictate the quantity of alcohol imported into Finland. The present government, however, has probably committed itself to complying with the agreement it has made with the EU. Does the Commission intend to follow up the measures aimed at dismantling the import restrictions in Finland, and if so, how?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

Finland has not in fact obtained a derogation permitting it to limit imports of alcohol from the Community until the end of 2003. Under Council Directive 96/99/EEC of 30 December 1996 amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products ((OJ L 8, 11.1.1997. )), it has, however in common with Denmark and Sweden obtained a derogation regarding alcoholic drinks carried in the baggage of travellers coming from the Community. Under the derogation, once certain allowances are exceeded, Finland may charge excise duty on such goods even though they are destined for the personal use of the traveller concerned.

The Community is not therefore in any sense 'dictating the quantity of alcohol imported into Finland'. Indeed, Finland is free to dispense with the derogation and grant travellers their full rights at any time. As regards the dismantling of the restriction, under the Directive Finland is committed progressively to remove its restrictions before the 2003 deadline, and before 30 June 2000, the Commission must report on the matter to the Council and Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3745/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Implementation of recommendation on Childcare

In its response to Question No E-0524/97 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 101. )) in April, the Commission said it was still awaiting responses from two Member States but that it would be publishing its report 'in the coming months'. When will the report be published and will the Commission do so without waiting any longer for outstanding responses, since the review was due to have been done in 1995?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

The report on the implementation of the Recommendation on childcare has been drafted on the basis of replies from thirteen Member States. This report will be adopted and published in the very near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3702/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Reduction and harmonization of drink-driving limits in the European Union

Every year some 45 000 people die on the roads of the EU Member States and one and a half million are injured. It is estimated that alcohol plays some part in at least half of fatal traffic accidents.

The drink-driving limits vary considerably between the EU Member States. For example, in Denmark, Italy and Germany the legal limit is 0.8 ml whereas in Sweden, which has the strictest limit, it is 0.2 ml. The harmonization of the limits - which in most cases would mean the reduction of the limit - at for example the Swedish level of 0.2 ml would undoubtedly have a positive effect on road safety. Maximising the safety advantages would of course call for a widespread change in attitudes, increased effectiveness of controls and the modernization of control mechanisms.

In the light of the above, what measures does the Commission propose taking to explore the possibility of harmonizing and reducing the drink-driving limits in the various Member States? What measures does it intend to take to find out how traffic controls can be tightened in order to eradicate drunken driving more effectively?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

The Commission first put a proposal for a Council Directive to set the maximum Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) for vehicle drivers at 0.50 milligram per millilitre in 1988 ((OJ C 25, 31.1.1989. )) and it was approved by the Parliament in May 1989. At that time, however, and for most of the period since, support for such a proposal from Member States has not been broad enough to ensure progress with such Community legislation.

Recent changes in policy by some Member States have, however, encouraged the Commission to reopen the debate on the permitted maximum BAC for drivers, and last October, the Transport Council was urged to reconsider the issue. Further efforts are now being made against the background of the strategy for improving road safety and reducing road accidents and casualties that was set out in the Commission's communication on that subject in April 1997.

The Commission shares the opinion expressed by the Honourable Member that, to maximise the safety gains, legislation on drink driving needs to be accompanied by effective measures of enforcement, most of which fall under the legal responsibility of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4093/97 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Funding for Hertfordshire in 1994-1997 from the ERDF and KONVER Funds

Would the Commission please inform me of the amount of funding Hertfordshire has received from the ERDF and KONVER Funds in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

Mainstream European regional development fund (ERDF) funding is not available to Hertfordshire as the county has not been declared eligible under the structural funds' regional objectives. However, Hertfordshire has received funding under the Konver Community initiative programmes.

The ERDF and the European social fund (ESF) awards made to Hertfordshire under the Konver II programme (which covers the period 1994-1999) are as follows:

>TABLE>

It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of payments made to Hertfordshire on an annual basis. This information is held by the British government. Its office for the Eastern region administers the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3649/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Support for small and very small businesses in the civil construction sector in Portugal

The civil construction sector is of major social and economic importance in Portugal. In addition to a small number of big companies, there are numerous very small, small or medium-sized firms which exist in an increasingly dependent situation vis-à-vis the former and are therefore in ever direr economic and financial straits, with all that may entail for higher unemployment.

As is well-known, there is a growing desire throughout the Union to promote substantial and sustained support for very small firms and SMUs; also relevant here is the specific programme for the restructuring and development of Portuguese industry (PEDIP).

In this connection, can the Commission state:

1. in the context of the PEDIP, what concrete measures or programmes exist to support SMUs in the civil construction sector in Portugal;

2. in the more general context of the Community programmes in support of very small firms and SMUs, whether there are any measures specifically targeted on enterprises of this type in the civil construction sector?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1997)

Although there are no measures in the PEDIP programme specifically aimed at supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector of civil construction in Portugal, many of the projects supported by the programme provide very significant amounts of work for such enterprises, as indeed is the case with other programmes in the Community support framework for Portugal.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the sector of civil construction are directly supported by the Community initiative for SMEs. This category of SMEs is specifically eligible under the following measures of the programme:

Measure 1: Support for micro and small enterprises.

Measure 2: Strengthening of competitivity of enterprises in the area of tourism and civil construction and public works.

Measure 3: Development of technological competence in SMEs.

Measure 4: Training.

Measure 5: Financial engineering.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3561/97 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Engine and engine-room noise requirements

Why can my three simple questions not be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 January 1998)

The short reply to the three earlier queries by the Honourable Member (written question No 2009/97 ((OJ C 391, 23.12.1997. ))) is no, because there is no question of 'authorisation' by the Commission.

The Commission in its earlier reply provided the information requested by the Honourable member on the legal obligations pertaining to Denmark and the measures contained in the Directives to protect workers. In its reply to his written question No 2620/97 ((OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 74. )), the Commission gave the Honourable Member further technical information to assist in appreciating the legal situation.