ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1029/01

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Excise duty on alcoholic beverages

The Commission has long considered the question of the application of excise duty to alcoholic beverages. Article 93 provides a legal basis for the introduction of harmonised structures for excise duties on alcoholic beverages so as to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market.

Despite this, the Commission has failed to produce any proposals concerning the imposition of excise duty on alcoholic beverages. It is understood that a further study into this issue is being conducted. When will this study and the Commission's response be published?

Can the Commission give an assurance that it will not propose any measures or undertake any activities which would increase discrimination in favour of any one category of beverages and that it will continue to seek the introduction of a system which ensures that competition in the single market is not distorted?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

As part of the preparation of the next report of the Commission on the levels of the minimum excise duty rates and the excise duty rates applied by Member States on alcoholic beverages, a study on competition between different types of alcoholic beverages has been carried out by a private consultant. This study has recently been finalised. Furthermore, the Commission is consulting all the Member States, as well as the interested health and trade organisations. This consultation process is now nearly completed. Based on all the information and opinions received, the Commission is drafting its report, which should be adopted during the coming months. As yet, no decision has been taken on whether or not this report should be accompanied by a proposal for a Directive changing the minimum rates of excise duty on alcoholic beverages.

The Commission cannot prejudge the outcome of the report. However, it can assure the Honourable Member that it has taken note of the positions expressed by trade organisations and Member States concerning possible discrimination between different categories of drinks and distortion of competition in the single market. These issues will be addressed in the report.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1233/01

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Investment aid to farmers' joint undertakings

Farmers are entitled to receive investment aid to help them purchase shared machinery. In Finland, however, subsidy applications have been turned down from farmers' joint undertakings having legal personality, such as limited companies, partnerships, cooperatives and associations. On the other hand, investment aid can be granted to machinery consortia in which each farmer participating in an application for machinery is required to make his own individual application. This leads to serious difficulties in obtaining machinery, arranging loans, bookkeeping, machine maintenance and repair, etc. It would be more flexible and logical for farmers in many respects if they could form their own legal entities of which they were the sole members and which could apply for machinery, manage it and keep the accounts relating to it.

In the light of the above:

- Is the Finnish authorities' interpretation of EU legislation correct?

- What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that farmers' cooperation for the purchase of machinery can be made more flexible and effective while at the same time reducing bureaucracy?

- What legislative measures does the Commission propose to take to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Finland notified in autumn 2000 the Decision of Council of State on rural development (Aid No N 97/00, N 160/00 and N 264/00). This legislation, that refers both to co-financed investments and nationally funded investments was approved by the Commission the 9 October 2000.

According to the explanation provided from the Finnish authorities on the notified legislation, the investments in machinery are funded purely from national funds. Furthermore the Finnish authorities have decided that investments in machinery made by machinery chains or other farmers' associations are not eligible if the associations in question do not practice farming. This decision is the responsibility of the Finnish authorities and the financing of the acquisition of machinery is only made through national funds. The Commission cannot comment on this.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility of national or local government for supervising animal protection

An official government report (Better animal protection, SOU 2000:108) published in Sweden in December 2000 states that the Swedish model, whereby animal protection is under the supervision at local level of the local authorities, does not meet the requirements of EU Directive 90/425/EEC(1). The author of the report maintains that, owing to EU requirements, the task of supervision must be removed from the local authorities and proposes that responsibility should pass to the government.

The assertion that the Swedish model does not meet EU requirements has been met with astonishment, not least by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, which questions the report's claim. The Swedish Government, however, has been pressing for a number of years to take over responsibility for local supervision from the local authorities. Their own parliamentary group, however, is opposed, which has meant that the government has been unable to put forward proposals. It is suspected, therefore, that it is the government's own political ambitions which lie behind the report's conclusion rather than the EU directive.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish model, under which the local authorities are responsible for local supervision, is contrary to any current EU directive?

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Article 2 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internat market, provides the following definition of competent authorities:

competent authority shall mean the central authority of a Member State competent to carry out veterinary or zootechnical checks or any authority to which it has delegated that competence.

The Directive does not provide or ban any particular model of organisation to implement the veterinary legislation within the Member States, as it opens the possibility to the central authority to delegate its competence.

However, it should be recalled that according to the general principles of Community law it is for the Member States to ensure that Community legislation is implemented within their territory. Insofar as Community law does not include common rules to this effect, the national authorities when implementing legislation act in accordance with their own national law. However, this rule must be reconciled with the need to apply Community law uniformly(1).

(1) Court of Justice in Case 205-215/82 (Milchkontor), [1983] E.C.R. 2 633.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Cigarette smuggling

There are persistent reports that legally established European cigarette production, storage and distribution companies are also involved in cigarette smuggling in the EU. The Commission has already taken action against two major American companies in this matter.

Given that cigarettes produced by the European cigarette industry are also marketed in the EU countries, will the Commission say:

1. Does it have any information about the involvement of legally established European companies in cigarette smuggling? Does it also intend to take action against such companies should there be sufficient information to back the charges?

2. Which elements of this information are available and can be communicated to us?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) is looking at all aspects involving cigarette smuggling into the Community which affect the Communities financial interests. In this context, the Task Group Cigarettes is working closely with the relevant authorities in the Member States and certain third countries to identify the principals and organisations behind these activities.

Especially, when cigarettes are produced within the Community, exported to third countries, and subsequently illegally reintroduced into the Community, there is a Community competence for carrying out investigations, even if investigations in the field of cigarettes produced in the Community and subsequently diverted without payment of taxes and duties within the Community, fall more generally within the responsibility of the Member States.

Investigations in this area are on-going. At this stage, it is therefore not appropriate to provide further details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1111/01

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages

The Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages has played a central role in helping to safeguard and promote the lesser used languages throughout the European Community. Now the expertise of the Bureau, built up over many years, is being directly and unjustly jeopardised by Commission threats to close it down in the interests of costs and utterly against the interests of all those who speak lesser used languages throughout the Community. Does the Commission agree that the EU must show respect for cultural diversity and will it now do so by committing itself to the retention of the Dublin Bureau for Lesser Used Languages?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2001)

The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL), which has offices in Dublin and Brussels, is the beneficiary of a Community running costs grant, which makes up some 80 % of its budget. A particular condition of this type of financing is that the organisation's administrative costs must be kept to a strict minimum. Eligible costs are those necessary to ensure the normal running of the beneficiary organisation and enable it to pursue its stated objectives. In the case in point, EBLUL's cost structure, as set out in its initial grant application for the 2001-2002 period, was not consistent with these prescriptions. Administrative expenditure had risen to nearly 75 % of the budget, and a projection of trends in wages and overhead costs relative to income demonstrated that, unless there was a significant restructuring, EBLUL could not continue for very much longer to serve the regional and minority language communities of the Community in any substantial way.

The Commission therefore requested that, during the course of the forthcoming grant period, EBLUL should reorganise its activities so as to reduce expenditure on salaries and overheads considerably and effect a significant and real transfer of resources from administrative expenses to practical action in support of the regional and minority language communities of Europe.

As an independent non-governmental organisation, EBLUL was alone responsible for deciding what steps must be taken to meet the Commission's request. In its final grant application for the 2001-2002 period, the organisation has indicated that it intends to reduce its administrative costs during the course of the year to approximately one half of the total budget while maintaining a presence in Ireland, though on a lower cost basis than at present. This measure will enable the organisation to step up considerably its information, lobbying, networking and promotion activities in favour of regional and minority languages.

The Commission considers that its action in this matter has contributed to ensuring that the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages can continue to play a significant role in the Community policies for safeguarding linguistic and cultural diversity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0948/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Use of alkyphenols

1. Will the Commission indicate the current position on restrictions on the use of alkyphenols in EU legislation and in the national laws of the Member States?

2. Is the Commission aware that alkyphenols are used in industrial detergents, spermicidal lubricants and pesticide sprays and are known hormone disrupters?

3. Is the Commission aware of alternative products that might be used to perform the same tasks without the same side-effects?

4. Is the Commission satisfied with the current level of restrictions on the use of alkyphenols?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Commission is currently finalising the assessment of the risks to human health and environment, under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1), of two nonylphenols, with the United Kingdom as Rapporteur Member State: (a) Phenol, 4-nonyl, branched (CAS Registry Number 84852-15-3); (b) Nonylphenol (CAS Registry Number 25154-52-3) and related derivatives (nonylphenol ethoxylates)

Nonylphenols and the nonylphenol ethoxylates are a family of products that constitute only a sub-group of the larger group of alkylphenols.

Following the completion of this work, restrictions on the marketing and use of nonylphenols and nonylphenol ethoxylates could be proposed, as appropriate.

To date, no Community measures have been adopted concerning alkylphenols in general.

The risk assessment reports indicate that the main use of these nonylphenols is as an intermediate in the production of nonylphenol ethoxylates, which in turn are used in detergents and paints and in the production of resins, plastics and stabilisers in the polymer industry. Other uses include the manufacture of phenolic oximes for use outside the Community in the metal extraction industry and in some speciality paints. The substance has a hormone disruptive ability. It also has several toxic properties, which occur at exposures similar to those inducing hormone system disturbances.

The risk assessment reports determined that the substances pose risks to human health (workers) and the environment (aquatic and terrestrial environment).

These conclusions were supported by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in its opinion of 4 February 2000.

Work is currently underway in the framework of the Regulation to identify the specific additional measures needed to control the identified risks. In this context issues related to substitution are also taken into account. It is expected that this work will be completed in June 2001.

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1160/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Regulatory framework video games

Recent research by the American Psychological Association (APA) has demonstrated that certain violent video games can trigger aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviour in minors but also in adult users and affect them much more than television or the cinema. It has also shown that many video games make children more aggressive, and their effect on human psychology may be even more harmful than violent scenes on TV or in the cinema, owing to the interactive nature of video games.

However, according to the Commission's evaluation report to the Council and the European Parliament (COM(2001) 106 final, 27.2.2001) concerning the protection of minors and human dignity, legislative provisions concerning a rating system for video games exist in only six Member States.

There are substantial differences in the approaches adopted by the various Member States in this matter (for instance, France has established a legislative framework to ban violent video games, Sweden is considering grading material according to the age of users and only very few Member States practice self-regulation for rating video games). In view of this, does the Commission intend to promote a uniform scheme for regulating this area in all Member States and, if not, what measures does it intend to take to ensure the protection of minors from the harmful effects of video games?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission does not currently intend to promote a uniform scheme in all Member States specifically for rating video games. At Community level, games are already covered by Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European information and audiovisual services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity(1).

The evaluation report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning the protection of minors and human dignity(2) notes that the Recommendation was applied consistently across the Member States and that most of their activities in this area related to the use of the Internet. It concludes that the challenges with respect to the protection of minors and human dignity are to be met across all media: the Internet, radio and television, video games, video cassettes and digital video discs (DVDs).

The Commission will examine the need for Community action in this field as part of the revision of the Television without Frontiers Directive planned for 2002.

(1) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(2) COM(2001) 106 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: New road bridge over the Havel river crosses an area protected under the Habitats Directive

The Brandenburg Land government is planning to build a new motorway feeder road from Rathenow to the A2 motorway through an area listed under the Habitats Directive.

1. Has the Commission been informed about the violation of the area's protected status by the planning of this motorway feeder road?

If so, what procedural measures has it asked the Brandenburg Land government to take?

2. Has the Commission gathered, from its contacts with the Brandenburg Land government, that a more environmentally acceptable variant is not to be taken into account in the route planning procedure now pending, presumably because it is politically undesirable?

If so, has the Commission urged that the modified zero option (extension of the existing B102 major road, possibly including a Brandenburg by-pass) be included?

3. Is the Commission aware that all the preliminary tests on the environmental acceptability of this infringement of the area's natural resources have been condemned by local naturalists as unqualified and defective, because important facts have simply been disregarded or under-valued?

4. Is the Commission aware that, if local experts had been involved, it would have been possible to avoid violating the protected area and constructing an artificial corridor for the new road?

What measures is the Commission taking in this connection to ensure that the avoidance principle is applied?

5. Are there any plans to employ EU funds to subsidise this road project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission has received a complaint concerning the planned new road bridge and motorway feeder road in Brandenburg/Germany. According to the complainant, the bridge and the road are being planned adjacent to the nature conservation reserve Untere Havel Süd in Brandenburg. In the view of the complainant, the affected area should be part of a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI). According to the complainant, a certain part of this area, which deserved inclusion in the pSCI was excluded to enable the project to proceed.

In order to assess the case properly, it is necessary to carry out an in-depth technical assessment of the information submitted by the complainant. An answer to questions 1 to 4 can be provided after the assessment will have been completed and final conclusions will have been drawn by the competent services. Notwithstanding an apparently comprehensive nomination of pSCIs for the Land of Brandenburg, the Commission will address an information request to the German Government if the assessment shows that Community law is likely to have been infringed in the current case.

The Commission, in principle, is not involved in the selection and implementation of individual projects. However, according to the information received from the Member State, no European Regional Development funding is envisaged for this project.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1767/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Charleroi Airport: compatibility of state aid and competition law

According to press reports, the Region of Wallonia grants the following assistance to Ryanair at Charleroi Airport:

(a) funding of training for cabin and check-in staff;

(b) a fee of BEF 5000 per aircraft is charged for handling (sorting of baggage, accompanying passengers etc.) which does not even cover costs whereas other airlines were previously charged BEF 60 000 per aircraft;

(c) free handling for the third daily flight to Dublin;

(d) BSCA (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) staff are placed at the disposal of Ryanair and paid for using public funds;

(e) concealed subsidies through which the Region of Wallonia enables Ryanair to offer free tickets to passengers.

Can the Commission confirm these reports of state aid and if so, whether such aid is compatible with Community competition law. Should that not be the case, what action the Commission intend to take to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

In 1998 and 1999 the Commission investigated the conditions in which Ryanair operates scheduled air services at Charleroi airport. In the course of its investigation it looked at the contracts concluded between Ryanair and BSCA, the company which manages Charleroi airport.

The examination failed to reveal any infringement of Community competition rules. It is true that Ryanair enjoyed favourable operating conditions at Charleroi airport in respect of groundhandling services, but it was also, by a long way, the main company operating at the airport. The discounts it received appeared to be standard commercial practice.

Nonetheless, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in the light of recent press articles it intends to check whether the information it obtained earlier is still valid.