ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Flagrant infringements caused by arbitrary extension of the preliminary investigation period

Serious irregularities have emerged involving an arbitrary method of calculating the duration of the period of the preliminary investigations by the Public Prosecutor's Office during the preliminary investigations in proceedings before the Public Prosecutor of Avellino (Italy) to ascertain the causes of the death of Mrs Enrica Romano. These infringements took the form of repeated requests for the case to be closed (up to Number 71 of the annex) which ultimately led to the loss of a period of time which could have been usefully occupied in further investigations.

The exercise of this discretionary power has therefore caused unfair and unacceptable harm to the injured parties. The undue length of the proceedings has actually infringed their fundamental right of defence enshrined in international treaties, and in the constitutions and constitutional case-law of all the Member States.

In addition, this must be deemed to be a direct breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to which a hearing must be held within a reasonable time. The time-limits arising from the right of action for the defence should never preclude or prevent effective protection of the injured parties.

1. Can the Commission therefore state how it intends to investigate the above-mentioned infringements of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time?

2. Can it indicate the measures which it intends to adopt to prevent public prosecutors from arbitrarily using purely discretionary powers in the conduct of criminal proceedings which then lead to unacceptable infringements of fundamental human rights?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

The Commission is committed to defending human rights throughout the world. However, the Treaties do not give the EU any general powers to uphold fundamental rights. It only has the power to apply Community law, which is based on respect for fundamental rights.

With regard to the matter raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is largely guaranteed in the Member States, both nationally, via domestic courts, and internationally, via machinery set up by the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1361/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 April 1998)

Subject: Insurance Premium Tax in UK

The increase of the Insurance Premium Tax in the UK, through the Finance Act 1997, causes a serious distortion of competition and appears to be at variance with Community law, since motor insurance and high street electrical sectors of industry are discriminated against in tax treatment.

What measures has the Commission taken, or will it take, to ensure that the prohibition of the selective higher rate of Insurance Premium Tax by Article 33 of the EC's Sixth Directive will be respected by the British government and will the Commission, in the frame of these measures, endeavour to respond to the complaints lodged by various quarters within British industry during the period June-December 1996?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 1998)

The Commission has received complaints concerning the increased insurance premium tax (IPT) rate applied to travel agents and high street electrical retailers. The Commission has been in contact with the British authorities and is still assessing the compatibility of a selective IPT rate with Article 92 of the EC Treaty.

As far as the question of compatibility of the IPT with the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/CCE of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1) is concerned, it must be said that this tax does not seem to constitute a tax of the kind prohibited by Article 33. In fact, this provision explicitly allows Member States to introduce or maintain taxes on insurance.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Zero Emissions Research Initiative

The Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) Foundation aims to design corporate strategies and industrial policies based on the principle of sustainable social and economic development.

What programmes does the Commission already have in this field and where do they overlap with the work of the ZERI Foundation?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1679/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations in Lithuania

Educational cooperation is one of the most important forms of grass-roots cooperation between the EU Member States and the candidate countries.

Of the PHARE appropriations intended for Lithuania, how much was utilized in 1997 for such cooperation and what proportion of these appropriations did it represent?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Attempt on the life of the President of the Human Rights Association in Ankara

On 12 May 1998, Mr A. Birdal, the President of Turkey's Human Rights Association, was shot in his office in Ankara and taken to a hospital in the Turkish capital in a critical condition. Mr Birdal is one of the most consistent upholders of democratic freedoms in his country and his utterances regarding the human rights situation in Turkey had been a source of constant irritation to the Turkish authorities.

Can the Commission give its official views regarding this occurrence, which provides indisputable evidence that fear and terror continue to reign in Turkey, a country seeking membership of the European Union, while at the same time those who uphold democratic freedoms are exposed to acts of extreme violence and even death?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The Commission was horrified to learn of the attempt on the life of Akin Birdal on 12 May. It utterly condemns this cowardly act and fully endorses the statement made on 13 May by the presidency on behalf of the European Union.

On EU-Turkey relations in general, the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997 underlined that closer relations between the two sides was also conditional on continuing political reforms in Turkey, particularly regarding alignment of human rights standards and practices on those in the Community and respect for and protection of minorities.

The Commission will continue to make known the EU's concerns in this area to the Turkish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3149/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning the prohibition of the advertising of cars and other products

Is it true, as claimed in several press reports (including one by the Bild am Sonntag on 19 July 1998), that the Commission is considering the possibility of prohibiting or restricting the advertising of motor vehicles?

If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Commission planning?

Is the Commission also considering the possibility of prohibiting the advertising of any other products or services?

If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Commission planning?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-2587/98 by Mr von Habsburg(1).

(1) See page 118.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1786/98

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: International march against the exploitation of child labour

The international march against the exploitation of child labour, which began in Manila (Philippines) on 17 January 1998 and has since passed through various cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America, has just arrived in Europe and is simultaneously following three routes in England, Sweden and Spain. Its main aim is to promote public awareness of the situation of the 250 million children in the world whose labour is exploited, according to ILO statistics, and to promote efforts to safeguard children's basic rights and encourage states to ratify and comply with existing laws on education and child labour.

Given the need to ensure that the objectives of the international march are fulfilled and that the European people as a whole should be made aware of the terrible situation suffered by millions of children in the world, which is completely unacceptable and intolerable, will the Commission say what contribution the European Union has made to the march and what projects and programmes it has planned to alleviate the conditions suffered by millions of children in the world?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 1998)

The Commission did not contribute to the world march against child labour, since it was not asked to do so. It nonetheless welcomes the event¢s contribution to mobilising world public opinion on one of the most serious problems of our times.

The Commission is pleased that following initial discussions at the 86th session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva from 2 to 18 June, the participants adopted conclusions proposing a convention and a recommendation on the worst forms of child labour to be adopted in 1999.

Earlier this year, the International Labour Office distributed a questionnaire to governments of member countries of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in response to which the Commission sent a working document to the Council and Parliament setting out all the measures adopted by the Community to combat extreme forms of child labour(1).

Since 1995 the Community has had the option of withdrawing the customs relief granted to developing countries under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences where they are found to practice forced labour involving adults or children. It has recently introduced incentives under the Scheme, aimed partly at supporting the social policies of countries which apply ILO Convention No 138 on the minimum age for admission to employment.

(1) SEC(97) 1265 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Coordination of action in Sudan

Does the Commission consider that there is any coordination of action between national governments of the Member States active in the Sudan in the relief of the famine and does it consider that such coordination could improve the effectiveness of their efforts?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Most humanitarian assistance for those affected by war and drought in Sudan is channelled through organisations (United Nations or non governmental organisations (NGOs)) working under the umbrella of Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS). OLS is a coordination mechanism, as well as a legal framework.

Under OLS auspices, regular coordination meetings are held, both in Khartoum and in Nairobi. Some of these meetings are exclusively for donors, including Member States. In the view of the Commission, such meetings serve to ensure a reasonable level of coordination between donors.

On a more general level, a revised system for exchange of information between the Commission and the Member States on funding decisions for humanitarian assistance was introduced in 1997. This system aims to strengthen coordination by means of a 48 - hour turn-around retransmission on Internet of funding decisions and statistics.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2193/98

by Fernand Herman (PPE) to the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Olive oil imports into the European Union from Tunisia

Is the quota of 46 000 tonnes for imports of olive oil into the EU from Tunisia reserved solely for the Tunisian state oil marketing body, the Office National de l'Huile?

If so, under what agreement and on what principle are Tunisian olive oil producers excluded from this quota?

The Single Market imposes a prohibitive import duty on the sale of non-Community olive oil over and above the quota. However, this quota should be open to all Tunisian producers and/or all European purchasers, and should not be the sole preserve of the state's own oil marketing body.

Does the Commission have any plans to abolish the olive oil import quotas system, and if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and Tunisia, on the other(1), in addition to providing for the import of a quota of 46 000 tonnes of olive oil at a reduced rate of duty, contains provisions concerning competition and other economic provisions.

In particular, Article 37 stipulates that the Member States and Tunisia are to progressively adjust any state monopolies of a commercial character so as to ensure that, by the end of the fifth year following the entry into force of the Agreement, no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of the Member States and of Tunisia. The Agreement entered into force on 1 May 1998. The Office national de l'huile is one of the bodies which would fall within the scope of this Article.

Concerning the possible abolition of the quota mechanism, the Community does not at present plan to do away with this mechanism which, in the case of olive oil, reflects traditional trade flows between the Community and Tunisia.

(1) OJ L 97, 30.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2169/98

by Stéphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission

(3 July 1998)

Subject: Compulsory bottling in the region of production

In Written Question P-1657/98(1), which pointed to the risk the Commission was taking in encouraging the development of a north/south divide by initiatives such as its proposal to amend Regulation No 823/87(2) I asked about the lawfulness of national provisions making the bottling of quality wines p.s.r. in the region of production compulsory.

In its reply of 11 June the Commission upholds the position it adopted in Case C388/95 currently being examined by the European Court of Justice and its proposal to amend Regulation No 823/97(3), which incautiously anticipates the Court's expected judgment in a case, without actually answering my basic questions, which I hereby reformulate:

1. Does current Community substantive law, in particular Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the Treaty on European Union and the Court's ruling in Case No 647/90 Delhaize Le Lion v Promalvin, authorize a Member State to adopt national provisions making it compulsory to bottle quality wines p.s.r. in the region of production?

2. Can views stated by the Commission in proceedings currently under way (Case C388/95) on the same subject be considered as an element of substantive law although the Court of Justice has not given a ruling on them?

3. Is the Commission aware that its current position is contributing largely to accentuating the north-south divide in the Union, in particular as regards budgetary problems in the farming sector, and this immediately prior to the reform of the COM in the wine sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

1. The Commission considers, that in certain cases, the national provisions making compulsory bottling of the wines of quality produced in a given region (quality wine psr) in region of production conform with milking EC and it is precisely this position which it defends before the Court of Justice.

2. The position of the Commission in a current contentious procedure is not obviously an element of positive duty. It is only the interpretation of the Commission of the positive duty in force.

3. The Commission considers that there is not North-South cleavage in this matter.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 65.

(2) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 59.

(3) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 138.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2119/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Unilateral investment sanctions on Burma

Would the Commission challenge an EU Member State if it were to impose unilateral investment sanctions on Burma?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Parliament about the situation in Burma. The Community has taken a number of steps in this respect. The common position on Burma which is due for review before 28 October 1998, does not, so far, include measures amounting to an investment ban.

As regards any investment bans by Member States, it should be noted that investment by Community nationals in other Member States or third countries, constitutes a movement of capital within the meaning of Article 73b ff. EC Treaty. Hence, the Community rules on capital movements apply to investments and investment bans. Article 73b prohibits, as a general principle, all restrictions on capital movements and payments not only between Member States but also between Member States and third countries. Therefore, Member States, as a principle, have to provide for full freedom of capital movements, including foreign direct investment, with any third country, including Burma.

The Treaty makes available to Member States a limited number of exceptions to this general principle. Thus Article 73c(1) EC Treaty provides that "The provisions of Article 73b shall be witthout prejudice to the application to third countries of any restrictions which existed on 31 December 1993 under national or Community law in respect of direct investment - including investment in real estate - establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets". No general restrictions by Member States on capital movements with Burma existed on 31 December 1993, which would be covered by this Treaty provision, apart from a very few sectoral restrictions (such as in the transport or fisheries sector) which apply to all third countries. Article 73g(2) allows for unilateral measures by Member States for serious political reasons and on grounds of urgency, as long as the Council has not taken Community measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2269/98

by Karl von Wogau (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Tax relief in respect of goods produced in Malta for export to the EU

Is the Commission aware that firms, for instance of British origin, are producing goods in Malta which are then exported to the EU under the terms of an Association Agreement between Malta and the EU?

Malta grants such firms full tax relief, but only in respect of goods which Malta exports to the EU.

The granting of full tax relief is distorting competition with firms producing goods within the EU. Moreover, the Commission has concluded that tax breaks are also covered by the prohibition on subsidies and aid.

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

By virtue of the "Industrial Development Act" enacted in 1988 and amended in 1993 with the purpose of sustaining investment promotion efforts by the Malta development corporation (MDC), a number of incentives are offered to export-oriented companies, including "an initial 10 year tax holiday to companies, which export at least 95 % of their sales".

This tax incentive is not only available to Community companies operating in Malta, but also to companies from other countries, including Maltese, on condition of MDC approval. The tax incentives are not only offered to products exported to the Community, but all export destinations are acceptable. The need to apply rules of origin from Malta has to be borne in mind. The Community-Malta Association Agreement indeed allows industrial products originating in Malta to enjoy free access to the Community market.

It should be added, however, that Malta, as a member of the World trade organisation (WTO), is subject to the provision of the WTO Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures (ASCM). If Malta is granting subsidies which are countervailable under the provisions of the ASCM, and if products exported to the Community are benefiting from these subsidies and thereby causing injury to the Community industry, the latter is entitled to ask the Commission to investigate the situation. In this regard, the provisions of the Community legislation in this area will be applied (under Council Regulation (EC) 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community(1)). The Community-Malta Association Agreement does not preclude the Community from taking countervailing duty action against imports from Malta if the relevant requirements of this regulation are met.

(1) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3171/98

by Marlies Mosiek-Urbahn (PPE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: EU aid for Hesse from the Social Fund and Regional Fund

Can the Commission provide information on economic and regional aid from the EU to the Federal German Land of Hesse:

1. What was the level of EU structural aid funding received by this region in 1997, broken down by fund and Community initiatives?

2. How much of this went to the agricultural sector?

3. How many jobs were created in Hesse in 1997 with the aid of economic and regional aid from the EU?

4. What EU structural aid funding was received by comparable regions in other Member States of the Community in 1997?

5. How many jobs were created in comparable regions in other Member States of the Community in 1997 with the aid of economic and regional aid from the EU?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/98

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Thalassaemia

Will the Commission draw up proposals for a publicity campaign to increase awareness of the importance of screening for Thalassaemia, an inherited genetic blood disorder which is particularly prevalent amongst people of Asian origin whose ancestors came from the Indian sub-continent? A simple blood test can identify carriers of the disorder, for which there is no effective cure and which can lead to premature death.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Commission is aware that the hereditary blood disorder, thalassaemia, affects individuals of southern Asian origin as well as those with Greek, Middle Eastern, and African ancestry. The proposed Community action programme on rare diseases(1), which is currently under legislative consideration, identifies the provision of knowledge about rare diseases and the fostering of patient and family support groups among its possible actions. Once the programme is adopted, the question of public awareness campaigns for thalassaemia screening could be considered in this framework.

(1) COM(98) 232 final.