ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3451/00

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Non-commercial transport of pets

The Weil report (for the High-Level Group on the Free Movement of Persons) noted a large number of persistent barriers to free movement.

Out of a total population of 370 million, there are, currently, 5,5 million Community citizens (or 1,5 %) established in the territory of a Member State other than their country of origin. They therefore constitute a small number of citizens, but their impact on the Union is very important.

The Commission has been complaining about the difficulties it had in recruiting sufficient staff to manage, for example, the LIFE Programme.

Every year, a large number of pets are abandoned in various countries.

The Commission:

1. Does it really believe that the proposal for a regulation on the health checks applicable to the non-commercial transport of pets was necessary?

2. How many people will be affected by this regulation? Has the Commission calculated how many animals are covered by this legislation?

3. What criteria did the Commission apply as regards efficiency and legislative priority?

4. What measures may a country take in the event of serious health risks?

Answer given Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

1. The Commission felt there was a need for Community health rules applicable to movements of pet animals. The aim of the document is to achieve harmonisation(1), based on the rules in force in the Member States, with the intention of removing national peculiarities which are unjustified and incomprehensible to European citizens.

2. The provisions of the draft concern both citizens resident outside their Member State of origin and all those who travel or holiday outside their Member State of residence accompanied by their cat or dog. In other words, tens of millions of European citizens are concerned by this proposal for harmonisation.

3. The ending of quarantine for cats and dogs by the UK authorities from January 2000, under an experimental programme, has eased the situation and allowed the Commission to table this proposal for harmonisation, which in the past would have been inconceivable. The Commission has thus seized the opportunity offered by the UK government's historic decision and has proceeded with a harmonisation operation which it considers useful, necessary and beneficial to the majority.

4. Finally, the manifestation of a serious risk necessitating emergency measures is covered by the third paragraph of Article 5 of the proposal, which makes provision for an urgent procedure, in the form of the adoption of a Commission decision pursuant to an opinion delivered by the Standing Veterinary Committee.

(1) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals, COM(2000) 529 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3270/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(23 October 2000)

Subject: Pilots above the age of sixty entering or flying over French airspace

Currently, no pilot over the age of sixty may fly over or into France while in charge of a public transport operation. This causes particular problems for British pilots, who are clearly at a geographical disadvantage.

Can the Council clarify whether France has the right to deny permission to a pilot over the age of sixty, who holds a valid JAA licence and meets JAA requirements, to fly to other JAA countries, including through French air space and to French destinations? Alternatively, does France have a right under the JAA Agreement to impose more stringent rules than those laid down by the JAA in JAR-FCL?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply given by the Council on 22 November 1999 to Written Question E-1636/99 on the same subject(1).

Since that time the legal situation has not changed either at Community or international level.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 59.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3556/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Application of Community directives to the ECB

Article 36.1 of the relevant Protocol stipulates that the ECB Governing Council shall lay down the conditions of employment of its staff. However, this article is being interpreted very broadly by the ECB's decision-making bodies, in particular as a means of refusing to negotiate these conditions with the staff's trade union representatives and to avoid having to apply Community directives.

1. Is the Commission aware of this broad interpretation expressed in ECB internal documents and in a press release issued on 5 October 2000?

2. Does the Commission consider that Community directives, especially the directive on working hours, should apply to ECB staff, as European citizens?

3. If the Commission is prepared to state that such directives apply to the ECB, what measures does it intend to take to enforce them?

4. Will the Commission state what legislation applies to the terms of employment of ECB staff in order to ensure that the fundamental rights of workers and general principles of European law are not violated?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the European central bank (ECB) press release dated 5 October 2000 entitled ECB labour relationships and the social dialogue with regard to the ESCB and the related more detailed document as of the same title and date.

According to Article 249 (ex Article 189) of the EC Treaty Community directives are addressed to Member States. As far as the employees of the ECB are concerned, the Governing Council of the ECB determines the conditions of employment by virtue of Article 36.1 of the Statute of the European system of central banks (ESCB).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4079/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(10 January 2001)

Subject: EU aid for enhancing the safety of nuclear reactors

As part of EU economic aid to the countries of Eastern Europe to enhance the safety of their technologically obsolete nuclear reactors, the Commission has decided to make available funds for this purpose to Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia which are candidate countries for accession to the EU.

What stage have the procedures relating to this economic aid reached? What is the take-up rate of funds by the countries concerned? On the basis of the funds taken up so far, how does the Council judge the effectiveness of these funds in enhancing the safety of the nuclear reactors in the candidate countries?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The EU has highlighted the importance of high standards of nuclear safety and of a high level of environmental protection from the outset of the accession negotiations with all the candidate countries by incorporating this objective in its General Negotiating Position.

The Council has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to assisting candidate countries in improving nuclear safety and developing medium and long-term energy strategies for the replacement of the less safe nuclear power reactors. In that perspective, the Council emphasises that for the countries which operate reactors that cannot be upgraded to internationally accepted levels of safety at a reasonable cost, earliest practicable closure of those reactors should be provided for, consistent with the priorities contained in the Accession Partnerships with the relevant countries.

EU assistance is being made available both through the PHARE programme and Euratom loans in a comprehensive strategy to support the candidate States' efforts in the decommissioning process and to upgrade safety levels and modernise reactors that will continue their operation.

Beyond that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 18 December 1989 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/94 of 4 July 1994, the European Commission is responsible for the requisite implementing measures under the PHARE programme. As indicated

in the Commission communication Commission support for nuclear safety in the Newly Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe, the Commission has begun to provide financial assistance for the process of decommissioning nuclear facilities in Lithuania and Slovakia and will grant the bulk of that financial support via international decommissioning aid funds administered by the EBRD.

The Commission is therefore the competent Community body to answer in detail the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3890/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Financial aid to Latin America

The Commissioner recently stated in an article published in the Spanish press that European financial aid to Latin America totalled 2 420 million over the period 1995-1999.

Given the region's importance for the European Union and the low level of implementation of the budget lines concerned, can the Commission provide the following information:

1. A breakdown by year of the 2 420 million for the period 1995-1999;

2. A list of the budget lines involved;

3. Figures per annum for the payments made from those 2 420 million?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3713/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Research into the effects of the ban on tobacco exports

According to the tobacco industry, the restrictions on the preparation and export of tobacco products proposed in the new tobacco directive will lead to the loss of jobs in the EU. What detailed research material does the Commission possess on the effects of the new tobacco directive on the employment situation of the tobacco industry in the various EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

It is unclear to what extent the Community production of cigarettes for export exceeds the proposed ceilings for tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields. According to information provided in the course of meetings between the Commission and representatives of the tobacco industry, cigarette exports from the Community would equal approximately 15 % of total Community cigarette production but of course only a fraction of the exported cigarettes would exceed the proposed ceilings.

Thus, it is difficult to estimate what percentage of Community production would be concerned if the measures proposed are adopted, what possibilities exist for diversification, and what effect a transitional period could have. In general terms, as regards the employment characteristics of the tobacco manufacturing industry, a report was published by the European Confederation of Cigarette Manufacturers in 1997(1), and on page 11 of this report, the following statement is made: Based on the information provided by the tobacco manufacturing associations in the Member States, full-time employment in tobacco manufacturing has declined since 1990. For the EU12, the number of full-time jobs fell 23 % to 64 184 in 1994 from 83 419 in 1990. The decline is in common with the trends exhibited across most manufacturing sectors in the EU. This trend towards lower employment is mainly due to continued improvements in labour productivity, which are associated with the industry's investment in more efficient equipment.

Thus, the origin of the decline in employment, according to the relevant industry federation, is due to sources outside the control of the Community legislator.

Attention is also drawn to the current negotiations for a World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which envisages the creation of internationally agreed product standards, which would be complementary to those being discussed at the level of the Community.

The Commission is not in possession of detailed research material of the type referred to by the Honourable Member.

(1) The tobacco industry in the European Union 1997, Pieda plc.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Intended response to the revision of the FSC and successor provisions

The US rules on foreign sales corporations are due to be reviewed by Congress very soon. Under these provisions, the proceeds of sales transacted abroad are exempt from tax. According to the US Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Stuart Eizenstat, the WTO dispute settlement body has established that it is entirely up to Members to decide whether or not to tax such earnings.

The Council:

1. Does it agree with the Member of the Commission responsible, Pascal Lamy, that the proposed provisions are incompatible with WTO rules?

2. If so, what form of measures to protect EU trade does the Council envisage taking?

3. What goods and/or enterprises would be affected by these measures?

4. What alternatives to measures to protect EU trade under Article 133 of the TEU would the Council consider?

5. Does the Council consider that the individual Member States of the European Union have the power to determine the taxation of earnings for themselves?

If not, how does the Council justify its interpretation of the law?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

Following a procedural agreement with the European Union, the United States on 29 September 2000 asked the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) for a one-month extension (until 1 November 2000) of the deadline for implementation of the appellate body's recommendations on the FSC dispute. The DSB granted the request.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the United States were not able to approve the new legislation until 15 November 2000.

Under these circumstances, in keeping with the Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the Settlement of Disputes, the European Union filed a request on 17 November 2000 for suspension of concessions worth USD 4 043 thousand million and an initial list of products which might be subject to sanctions. The United States then requested that the level of the proposed suspension be referred to arbitration.

The European Union remains of the opinion that the recent American legislation is not WTO compliant. Nevertheless, having always held that WTO compliance cannot be assessed unilaterally, the Union also entered into formal consultations with the United States, following which, on 7 December 2000, it decided to request establishment of a panel to assess whether the said legislation is in compliance. The arbitration procedures will be suspended by joint request of the parties, pending the panel's report.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3368/00

by Thierry de La Perriere (UEN) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Problems concerning town twinning

A number of mayors have referred to the difficulties they have encountered this year in their twinning work and their worries about the future. It would appear that we are heading for paralysis unless more substantial resources and less technocratic instructions are swiftly introduced for those involved in twinning schemes.

In particular, two points are posing real problems:

- the long delay in processing applications for subsidies;

- the obligation to issue calls to tender, which makes it more difficult for small towns to gain access to funding, since they do not have staff specialised in the complex procedures involved in responding to calls to tender and they have minimal financial resources.

Can the Commission therefore say;

1. what the reason for the delays is;

2. what it intends to do to ensure that the procedure for submitting applications remains accessible to as many towns as possible, in particular to the smallest ones;

3. whether there is a report assessing the results of the programme?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The Commission continues to be very much aware that the town-twinning assistance programme needs to be managed effectively if it is to be a complete success.

In view of past difficulties and the needs arising from them, and given the very large number and variety of proposals received, the Commission is introducing a new procedure which should help to improve effectiveness.

An information meeting on this new call for proposals procedure was held on 23 October 2000, to which representatives of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), the national associations of the Member States, the central and eastern European countries, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, the United Towns Organisation (UTO) and the Assembly of European Regions were invited.

The questions raised by the Honourable Member have already been dealt with in the new call for proposals.

The Commission notes the concerns voiced by the Honourable Member and will keep Parliament informed of developments relating to the new procedures.

An assessment of ten years of Community assistance activities for twinning was presented at the Bilbao conference in December 1999. The booklet containing this assessment will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3943/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Cost of bank transfers

1. Will the Commission estimate the average or typical cost to a commercial bank customer of a transfer worth 50 to another bank customer:

(a) within each of the Member States;

(b) between each Member State within the eurozone and each other Member State within the eurozone?

2. Is it the objective of the Commission that the cost of all banking transfers within the euro area, including cross-border transfers, should be the same as it is in individual Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

1. (a) The Commission does not dispose of sufficient information to be able to estimate the average or typical price of a credit transfer of 50 between two banks within each Member State. There are approximately 10 000 banks within the Community and each determines its own price policy. The fact that a bank's customer is either not charged directly or only in a non-transparent manner (with a price for each transaction) does not mean that the client pays nothing (cross-subsidising, package prices, etc.). Payment transfers involve costs.

(b) The Commission has no information on the price of a 50 cross-border credit transfer. However, a study carried out by the Institut Européen Interrégional de la Consommation in autumn 1999 showed that the average fee for a cross-border credit transfer of 100 from one country of the Euro-zone to another was approximately 17. Details of transfers between some individual pairs of banks in the Euro-zone can be found at the web-site

(www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/surveys/sur14_en.html).

On the basis of the results of this study, and if we disregard arguments about methodology, it may be concluded that the difference in price for domestic and cross-border credit transfers is very high.

2. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the problem of the high prices for cross-border payments. Cross border transfers are still significantly more expensive than domestic ones. It is the aim of the Commission to render cross-border payments, especially low value payments, more reliable, less costly and faster. This has been repeated by the Commission on numerous occasions; e.g. Communication Retail Payments in the Internal Market of January 2000(1), reply to the Peijs-Report in the Parliament on 26 October 2000, the Commission's round table conference Establishing a Single Payment Area on 9 November 2000(2).

(1) COM(2000) 36 final.

(2) (see web-site www.europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/internal_market/index_en.html).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2936/00

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Cyprus

Can the Council indicate what action it intends to take against Turkey in order to secure the lifting of the illegal embargo by that country against any merchant ships that have visited ports in Cyprus, and can it explain to Parliament why no action has been taken hitherto?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

1. The Council is perfectly aware of the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member, which, moreover, concerns not only the relations governed by agreement between the EU and Turkey, but also other international obligations on the part of Turkey. As early as 1998 the Presidency of the Union raised this problem with the Turkish side in the margins of a meeting at the OECD. Likewise, the matter is regularly on the agenda for the proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Customs Union bringing together the EU and Turkey, and, in particular, was discussed at the Committee's meeting on 8 December 2000.

2. In addition, at a meeting of the Council's competent preparatory bodies, the Commission, which, within its sphere of competence, also has to address the matter, announced that it had raised this problem with the Turkish side last October during the first round of negotiations with Turkey on services and public procurement. It also raises the matter regularly in its periodic reports on the progress made by Turkey towards accession, and notably in its last report dated 13 November 2000.

3. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that in its address before the UN General Assembly on 12 September 2000, the Presidency, speaking on behalf of the Union, considered that the status quo in Cyprus was unacceptable and stated that it supported the UN Secretary-General's efforts to reach a negotiated, overall, just and lasting settlement in line with the Security Council's resolutions.