ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/247

(2004/C 84 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3572/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Lloyds of London

What consideration did the Commission give to the letter from the Lloyds Names Association of early 2003; and what comment does the Commission have on the Court finding of July 2003 that Lloyd's was in breach of the obligations in Article 19 of the pertinent Directive?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has received a large number of letters and e-mails from the Chairman of the Lloyd's Names Association (LNA). Receipt of four letters sent in January 2003 were acknowledged in writing by the letter of the Internal Market Directorate-General dated 30 January 2003. The Commission considered these comments as part of its assessment when deciding to close (1) the case in October 2003. Many comments related to the past situation at Lloyd's, i.e. before the entry into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or had regard to non-prudential matters.

The Honourable Member has not fully specified the Court finding to which he refers. However, in the light of the enquiries made by the Commission and having regard to other correspondence received from the LNA Chairman, the Commission considers that this Court finding could relate to the decision of Lord Justice Thomas in the English Commercial Court case of Sphere Drake v. Sterling Cooke Brown (SCB). On the basis of the information provided by the LNA Chairman, this case relates primarily to matters in an individual Lloyd's syndicate during the period 1992-1996 and was therefore not directly relevant to the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the new regulatory regime.

(1) Please see Commission Press Release IP/03/1386.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/481

(2004/C 88 E/0494)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4027/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Capital gains tax deductions

In calculating capital gains tax to be paid on the proceeds of selling a domestic property, in France the cost of improvements to the property can be deducted from the total tax payable.

Does this still apply if the work to improve the property is carried out by a British firm and paid for in UK Sterling?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

This question is a matter for the French Government and not for the Commission. There is no harmonisation of direct taxes within the European Union and Member States are free to establish their own tax laws — provided, of course, that they comply with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty creating the European Union.

One such freedom relates to the provision of services. A tax rule that denied a deduction for the cost of work carried out by a business established in another Member State would appear to give rise to discrimination based on the nationality or place of residence of the service provider. As such, it would be likely to constitute an infringement of the EC treaty. However, the Commission has no reason to believe that such a rule might exist in France.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/76

(2004/C 88 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2303/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject: Cuba — European Commission delegation — human rights

Since the EU has decided to:

(a) urge the Cuban authorities to free all political prisoners;

(b) limit the number of high-level bilateral meetings with Cuban dignitaries;

(c) reduce the level of participation by the Member States in cultural events;

(d) invite Cuban dissidents to participate in ceremonies marking their national days;

(e) reassess its joint position vis-à-vis Cuba,

can the Commission say:

— whether those responsible for running its delegation have already been fully accredited with the Cuban authorities;

— how the delegation in Cuba has implemented the EU decisions concerning that country; in particular whether the delegation has invited Cuban dissidents to take part in activities promoted in accordance with the recommendation made to the embassies of the Member States;

— what steps the delegation has taken or intends to take vis-à-vis the Cuban government to inform it of the Member States' decisions and its concern about and opposition to the government's totalitarian methods;

— what issues it considers should be reassessed in the EU's joint position regarding Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission's Delegation in Cuba is run by a Chargé d'Affaires a.i., under the responsibility of the Head of Delegation in the Dominican Republic, who must also be accredited as Head of Delegation in Cuba. The Cuban Government gave its agreement on 14 April 2003 to his appointment. The date for the presentation of the credentials of the Head of Delegation has yet to be fixed.

The Commission's Delegation in Cuba is fully associated with the implementation of the measures adopted by the Union on Cuba. The Delegation did invite dissidents to the reception organised for Europe Day on 9 May 2003. It participated in the two ‘troika’ démarches in Havana during the last months to inform the Cuban Government of the Union's decisions and to call for the immediate release of imprisoned dissidents.

The re-evaluation of the Union's Common Position has just been concluded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/431

(2004/C 78 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2794/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Publication of the EU's Kyoto target as a five-year moving average

The Kyoto Protocol stipulates that compliance with commitments is to be gauged according to the average for the years from 2008 to 2012. This is reasonable because weather conditions, for example, can have a great impact on annual emissions, linked among other things to the small quantities of hydroelectric power generated in dry years. The developments as regards achievement of the Kyoto target by the EU and its Member States have recently been the subject of conflicting assessments stemming in part from weather conditions, as mentioned above. The press, to say nothing of the public at large, cannot understand such fluctuations or ascertain whether the trend after smoothing is encouraging or gloomy.

Has the Commission thought of changing its reporting by publishing, in addition to the annual statistics, an indication of the distance to target, calculated from a five-year moving average? Does it think that this would put the public in a better position to understand the real direction in which developments were moving, viewed over a time span longer than a year?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/683

(2004/C 78 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4072/03

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject: Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement

Does the Commission consider that the proposal announced in November 2003 by Israel ‘to list the city of origin for the goods’ on proofs of origin (or on products) would enable ‘the national customs authorities to determine, for each and every individual consignment, whether, under those provisions, the elements of fact and law allow refusal of the preferential tariff treatment’?

Does the Commission consider that listing the name of a locale can enable Member States to identify Israeli settlement goods commingled in shipments with essentially identical goods originating in Israel, products incorporating settlement-produced components to an extent as to render that product non-originating, or products in which working or processing carried out in settlements is cumulated with working or processing carried out in Israel?

Is the Commission aware that Israeli officials have been quoted as estimating that ‘as much as USD 2 billion of Israel's annual USD 7 billion exports to Europe’ (1) incorporates some material from settlements?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Israeli suggestion of indicating the place of production of goods being exported to the Community still needs to be further clarified by Israel before any conclusions can be drawn, for example as regards its possible effect on refusal by the national customs authorities of preferential tariff treatment.

One of the issues to be clarified would indeed be to know how the proposed scheme would be implemented, for example in the case of mixed consignments, which include both goods produced in the settlements and products obtained in the territory of the State of Israel.

The statement reported by the New York Times in May 2001 was never made to the Commission by Israeli officials.

(1) ‘In meetings with European negotiators, Israeli officials have said that as much as USD 2 billion of Israel's annual USD 7 billion exports to Europe could be penalised by a policy change, as many Israeli manufactured goods incorporate some materials from settlement communities.’ EU Targets Goods Made in Israeli Settlements, William A. Orme Jr., New York Times, 22 May 2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/291

(2004/C 78 E/0291)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3483/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Use of documents as evidence of criminal activity

If, in the course of an investigation of a cartel arrangement, the Commission finds evidence of unrelated criminal activity or links between the company concerned and organised crime, can it notify the relevant judicial or police authorities?

If not, will the Commission put forward proposals to change the law in order to enable it to do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

During company inspections ordered by Commission decision pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 (1), the national competition authorities cooperate and lend their assistance where necessary to the Commission officials. In certain countries, national procedures also require police officers to be present during the proceedings.

If a criminal activity were to be discovered during the inspection, the representatives of the national authorities would report the matter to the judicial or police authorities of the country concerned in accordance with the applicable national procedures. In certain countries, where CID officers attend the Community inspections, these could take immediate action under national law.

In view of the foregoing, there is therefore no need for changes to be made to the rules governing the involvement of Community officials in company inspections.

(1) Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ P 13, 21.2.1962.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/626

(2004/C 78 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3672/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Situation at the Sorefame company

The Sorefame company, which commenced operations in Portugal in 1943, is known for its high standards in terms of quality, capacity and technology in the manufacture and construction of large-scale equipment, notably rolling stock.

Currently owned by Bombardier, it employs 550 workers directly and provides a further thousand jobs via subcontracted enterprises.

However, Sorefame is now passing through difficult circumstances, despite the skilled workers and operatives who enable it not only to manufacture rolling stock but also to plan and design that equipment, representing a major economic and technological asset and ensuring the company recognition in terms of quality and competitiveness.

Orders are now in short supply: the Bombardier group claims to be in a phase of global restructuring, and is already hinting at closure of the Sorefame plant in Amadora (Portugal), should orders not begin to pick up.

A number of plans are on the drawing-board in Portugal which, if acted on, could resolve this problem. One of these is the strategic plan for more trains for the Lisbon and Oporto underground systems, as well as for Oporto's commuter train services and other networks.

Given the above, as well as comparable developments in other Member States:

1. What measures will the Commission take to support the normal functioning of Sorefame/Bombardier in Portugal, in the light of the company's contribution to employment and regional development?

2. Will the Commission support a policy of channelling Portuguese orders to this company, with a view to preventing the short-term paralysis of its production line, given the impact that would have on its workers' jobs and recalling that unemployment is now rising faster in Portugal than in any other EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

We must inform the Honourable Member that implementation of appropriate measures for sectors in crisis in Portugal is a responsibility of the national authorities alone, which have in fact reached agreement with us on introduction of support mechanisms for enterprises in the sector to which she refers and for public investment (under the Economy and Transport Operational Programmes we have approved (1)).

On the question of Community support for new Portuguese orders placed with the enterprise to which she refers, we must remind her that it is each Member State's responsibility to ensure that the Community Directives on public contracts are respected.

(1) C (2000) 1774, 28.7.2000; C (2000) 2382, 28.7.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/793

(2004/C 78 E/0843)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3224/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject: EC Commission proposal to replace Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on Drivers' Hours

I have received several letters from charities and voluntary organisations concerned that the above new replacement regulation will not include the current exemption for ‘vehicles used as shops at local markets or for door-to-door selling or used for mobile banking, exchange or saving transactions, for worship, for the lending of books, records or cassettes, for cultural events or exhibitions and specially fitted for such uses’. They are concerned that their vehicles will not be able to comply with the financial and administrative implications of the new regulation, and will have to be withdrawn from service.

While I appreciate the importance of the new regulation, would the Commission consider reinstating the current exemption in order that voluntary organisations could continue to provide a service to the community?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission's proposal (1) seeks, amongst other things, to restrict the considerable number of exemptions, derogations, and special arrangements in the current Regulation (2) to those which are strictly necessary, thereby limiting any possible abuse. In drawing up its original proposal, the Commission was advised that this particular derogation was outdated and could be removed.

The Commission has received many similar letters from the United Kingdom concerning the need to retain this derogation for specialised Play-bus vehicles. Consultations with the United Kingdom Department of Transport have confirmed that this derogation, which the Commission proposal currently wishes to delete, is used by the United Kingdom authorities to exempt this particular charitable activity. It is noted that there are no other derogations which could cover this particular activity and so the Commission is open to taking a more flexible approach on this specific derogation in any future discussions on the proposal.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/225

(2004/C 84 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/03

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject: The ‘Buy American Act’ in the American defence budget

Is the Council aware that a law has been included in the American defence budget of the House of Representatives that extensively commits the Pentagon to buying American defence materiel, viz. the so-called ‘Buy American Act’?

What is the Council's position in relation to the ‘Buy American Act’ that has been incorporated into US Defense Authorization Bill FY 2004?

What efforts has the Council made in seeking to prevent the act's adoption?

To what extent does the act amount to a violation of international trade treaties?

What impact will the act's adoption have on the arms industry in Europe and on cooperation in the area of arms production between the EU and the USA?

What countermeasures will the Council take if the act is definitively adopted?

Does the Council intend, if the act were to be adopted, to recommend to EU Member States that they adopt the same arrangements as those that the act would impose on the Pentagon?

Does the Council consider that adoption of the ‘Buy American Act’ will put the already strained relations with the United States under even more pressure?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council is aware of a bill adopted by the US House of Representatives which contained amendments to existing procurement laws requiring the Pentagon to favour US manufacturers.

The EU has been following developments very closely and has repeatedly conveyed its concerns on this issue to the US Administration, not least during political dialogue meetings held in the framework of the New Transatlantic Agenda. The US Administration has repeatedly assured the EU that it did not support the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives.

The Council understands that the legislation which was given final approval by Congress on 12 November 2003 does not contain the provisions which would have been potentially harmful for the EU industry.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/489

(2004/C 78 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3212/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: British newspaper allegations regarding irregularities in connection with Commission funding

According to the British ‘Daily Telegraph’ newspaper of 24 September 2003, Mr Neil Kinnock, Commission Vice-President, has received a letter informing him that the OLAF has uncovered irregularities concerning Community funding for Greek companies. According to the newspaper's correspondent (Mr Ambrose Evans-Prichard) the ‘letter claimed that alleged abuses at Eurostat were almost insignificant’ by comparison with those uncovered by OLAF regarding the awarding of contracts to a number of Greek companies.

Was such a letter sent to Mr Kinnock? If so, who signed it and what was its exact content? Can the Commission give a breakdown showing the precise amounts involved in these irregularities and which Greek companies (by name) were involved? What action has been taken by the Commission and what immediate measures will it take to elucidate this affair which has shed an unfairly negative light on Greece?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

An anonymous letter addressed to an Honourable Member and containing allegations of irregularities was, quite properly, handed to the Member of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration, Vice-President Kinnock, by that Honourable Member on 4 September 2003.

On the same day, following the established procedure, Mr Kinnock passed the anonymous letter to Mr Brüner, Director-General of OLAF, for appropriate inquiry and follow-up and then informed the Honourable Member of the action taken. Naturally, the Commission did not communicate the existence of the letter to the press at any time.

OLAF proceeded to carry out an assessment which included — ‘inter alia’ — detailed examination of all the files mentioned in the letter.

The outcome of this assessment by OLAF is that the allegations were unfounded. The Commission considers that no reputation of an individual, or of a company, or — a fortiori — of a Member State should suffer as a result of anonymous allegations of this kind when neither the investigations by OLAF, nor the internal checks carried out by the relevant Directorate-General, have discovered any evidence to substantiate the allegation.

The results of the OLAF examination were conveyed to the Honourable Member who gave the anonymous letter to Mr Kinnock.

All information which might lead to detection of misconduct is treated seriously by the Commission and given to the appropriate investigatory authorities. Misuse of the system for reporting alleged wrongdoing does, however, waste the valuable time of investigators and can discourage those who seek to communicate legitimate concerns in a responsible way.

The Commission would, therefore, be interested in receiving any information which could assist with the discovery of the identity of the anonymous letter writer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/651

(2004/C 78 E/0692)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Connection to electricity and water supplies

Further to Written Question E-2399/03 and the Commission's reply, will the Commission please reply to the same question but with regard to the parts of Scotland that are not within the Highland and Islands Region?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

3 746 381 people in Scotland live in areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds or in Objective 2 transitional areas. The interventions are organised under three Objective 2 Programmes in accordance with Commission Decisions taken on 21 and 22 March 2001: the West of Scotland Objective 2 Programme, the East of Scotland Objective 2 Programme and the South of Scotland Objective 2 Programme.

Under Objective 2, the interventions relate to the diversification and revitalisation of areas in economic decline. Infrastructures in these areas are supported where they are ‘a prerequisite for the location or development of job-creating economic activities’. In all three Objective 2 Programmes there is provision for actions to promote the adoption of waste minimisation, energy efficiency and environmental management to benefit economic activity and better protect the environment through more efficient use of resources.

The responsibility for deciding on the selection of projects co-financed by European Structural Funds lies with the Regional Partnership for each Objective 2 Programme. For the West of Scotland Programme, this is the Strathclyde European Partnership Ltd (SEP Ltd), for the East of Scotland, this is the East of Scotland European Partnership Ltd (ESEP Ltd) and for the South of Scotland, this is the South of Scotland Partnership (SOSEP).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/721

(2004/C 78 E/0771)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: VAT on postal services

The Commission's Communication on a ‘Strategy To Improve the Operation of the VAT system’ (1), issued in June 2000, indicated the Commission's intention, ‘inter alia’, to come forward with proposals to ensure the application of VAT to postal services. Could the Commission indicate what, if any, formal responses were received by it from the Irish Government regarding this particular proposal in the three-year period since the issuing of this Communication and its proposal for a draft Directive issued on 6 May 2003?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

No formal responses were received by the Commission from the Irish Government regarding the application of VAT to postal services as set out in its Communication A strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system within the context of the internal market' (2).

(1) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2) COM(2000) 348 final.