ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Harmonisation of alcohol tax

There are significant differences between the Member States' taxes on alcohol. Sweden has one of the highest alcohol taxes, which is justified on the grounds that it takes account of public health.

According to the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (13 October 2001), the Commission is planning to submit proposals for common maximum and minimum levels of tax on alcohol within the Union.

Does the Commission thereby wish to establish a new principle, i.e. that alcohol tax in the Union should be gradually harmonised? If so, can individual Member States obtain an exemption from that principle on grounds of public health?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Regarding excise duty rates, the Commission maintains its view that, in the longer term, the convergence of duty rates would be beneficial to the smooth working of the Internal Market. However, the present Community legislation only fixes minimum rates, and the determination of national excise rates on alcohol and tobacco products, above the Community minimum rates, remains a matter for Member States to decide.

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages(1). Under the provisions of this Directive, it is necessary for the rates laid down in the Directive to be reviewed periodically, on the basis of a Commission report taking into account all the appropriate factors. The Commission is at present in the process of producing such a report. It will take into consideration all aspects of the subject, including health issues.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Announcement by the Spanish Government concerning a 90 % reduction in the co-financing allocated to eradicating mad-cow disease

The Spanish Government's Agriculture Ministry has announced that it intends to reduce by 90 % the co-financing to be allocated in 2002 to initiatives designed to eradicate mad-cow disease, which means that Spain's self-governing regions or farmers themselves will have to meet the high cost of such initiatives. Experts on mad-cow disease, such as Professor José Badiola, and farmers' associations in Galicia (a region which has been particularly affected by BSE) have protested against the Spanish Government's plans, with Professor Badiola himself saying that the problem has not been resolved and that the EU should grant more funding since it is responsible for having allowed the United Kingdom to export meat- and bone-meal, whilst the associations take the view that, in any event, farmers cannot be held responsible for the spread of the disease and that the various institutions should tackle the problem. Does the Council consider the Spanish Government's plans to be fair? What action is the Council intending to take in order to ensure that the funds needed to enable bovine spongiform encephalopathy to be eradicated are made available?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

Decisions on granting funding for national measures are a matter for the Member States, acting in accordance with the relevant rules of the Treaties.

The Honourable Member will agree therefore that the Council has no role in the specific area of Member States' introduction and implementation of national provisions.

On a factual level, the Council would point out that at the 2402nd meeting of the Council of the European Union (Agriculture) on 19 December 2001 the Commission provided Member States, with their consent, with a summary of replies to a questionnaire that they had been sent on State aids for disposing of abattoir waste (in particular specified risk material) and fallen stock.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Additional municipal levy on forest products in Greece

In Greece, in addition to normal VAT, a further municipal tax is levied on domestic forest products at the primary processing (logging) stage. This tax is calculated each year by the Ministry for Agriculture and, together with VAT, currently amounts to 17 % of the market price.

This additional municipal levy is to the benefit of imported timber and to the detriment of domestic forest products. It creates serious economic and social problems for forest workers, their cooperatives and the local economy of the disadvantaged and mountain regions of Greece. What measures will the Commission therefore take to secure the abolition of the additional municipal tax levied by Greece on domestic forest products at the primary processing stage, which undermines healthy competition and is contrary to EU competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Certain fiscal matters have been subject to harmonisation within the Community. This is the case for valued added tax and for excise duties on tobacco, alcohol and mineral oils. There has been no harmonisation of taxes on forest products. The Member States therefore remain free to levy the taxes they see fit on these products, as long as they respect the general principles of the EC Treaty.

Article 90 (ex Article 95) of the EC Treaty prohibits discriminatory taxation by which a Member State gives an advantage to its domestic products as compared to the products of other Member States. However, this article does not prohibit fiscal measures which put a Member State's own products at a disadvantage compared to products of other Member States.

In view of this, the Commission has no intention to take measures in respect of the levy on forest products in Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: EDF and EIB

How does the Commission see the relationship between the European Development Fund and the European Investment Bank?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

According to the Cotonou Agreement, the Investment Facility (IF), by providing investment financing, in the form of loans, equity and quasi equity, as well as guarantees, aims to promote commercially viable businesses, primarily in the private sector. It will be operated by the European Investment Bank (EIB) as a revolving fund and be expected to earn a positive real rate of return.

The IF will be added to the EIB continuing own resource activities. Although operational management of the IF will be carried out exclusively by the EIB, close co-operation with the Commission will be necessary, in order to maximise synergies and cross-fertilisation in the programming and implementation process of European Development Fund (EDF) resources.

The preparation of Country Strategy Papers provides an opportunity for the EIB to contribute its advice and to ensure to the maximum extent possible that the decisions taken will enhance EIB activities in a given sector. At the same time, Delegations will be able to profit from EIB's experience and expertise.

The Commission and the EIB will have then to co-ordinate their policy of intervention in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in order to support private sector development and macro-economic reforms. In order to be effective and complementary, the IF and the assistance offered by the Commission on EDF funds will need to work in tandem, e.g. by ensuring that the Commission focuses on supporting the necessary macro-economic reforms, by building capacities in the ACP countries, by encouraging foreign direct investment and by contributing to the growth of local enterprises through technical assistance-related programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3612/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Trafficking and exploitation of children in Albania

According to figures provided by the Albanian Ministry for Public Order, between 1992 and 2000, 4000 children fell victim to organised crime in Albania. These child victims were taken illegally, mainly to countries in the West, to be abused by paedophiles, used as beggars and, in some cases, for the sale of organs.

Will the Commission take concerted action, with the maximum possible involvement of Europol and in close collaboration with the Albanian, Italian and Greek authorities, to root out the gangs involved in the trafficking and exploitation of children?

Does it know what stage has been reached with the framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography adopted by Parliament on 12 June 2001(1)?

(1) Text adopted on 12.6.2001.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Trafficking of human beings is an issue of concern in Albania. The Commission, together with Member States and other relevant international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), has been helping the Albanian authorities to address this issue. Despite these efforts and a number of important recent initiatives, i.e. the establishment of an anti-trafficking centre in Vlora (supported by Germany, Greece and Italy) and the adoption by the Albanian Government of an anti-trafficking strategy, much remains to be done in Albania to curb trafficking activities.

In its Country Strategy Paper for Albania 2002-2006(1), the Commission has considered justice and home affairs (including the fight against organised crime and trafficking of human beings) as the main priority area for Community financial assistance. For the implementation of projects in this field, the Commission will certainly take concerted action with all relevant bodies and institutions, both at Albanian and international level. These projects will aim, inter alia, to help to root out the gangs involved in the trafficking and exploitation of children, and to support Albania's continued progress in implementing the guidelines on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography adopted by the Parliament in June 2001.

(1) C/2001/4394.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3436/01

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Traffic jams in Gibraltar and freedom of movement for citizens

The freedom of movement for citizens is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union. However, it has come to my attention that movement across the border at Gibraltar is difficult, and thus conflicts with the principle of freedom of movement.

As a result of the dispute which has lasted for years between Spain and the UK over the Gibraltar issue, the Spanish authorities deliberately slow down traffic at the border crossing by their activities. This leads to enormous traffic jams both entering and leaving Gibraltar. Private cars are checked and coach passengers have to walk through the border control building with their luggage. There is no flexibility in practice and the process is made deliberately inconvenient.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve the situation and protect the freedom of movement for EU citizens between countries in Gibraltar as elsewhere?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

It should be remembered that the Spanish authorities are not only entitled but actually required to carry out checks on persons and goods crossing the border between Gibraltar and Spain, as this is an authorised crossing point on an external border of the Union (Articles 3, 5 and 6(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement) and Gibraltar is not part of the common customs territory (Article 29 of the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom).

Following complaints, the Commission has contacted the Spanish Government, drawing its attention to the possibility that the checks being carried out were disproportionate. The Commission is examining the Spanish authorities' reply before deciding on what action to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3695/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: EU delegations

The presence of an EU delegation in a country reflects the importance that the EU attaches to that area.

Can the Commission give a breakdown of:

- countries where the EU delegation is being done away with,

- countries where a new EU delegation is being established,

- countries where there will continue to be an EU delegation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Commission has no plans to close any of its Delegations. The Communication to the Council and the Parliament of 3 July 2001 on the Development of the External Service(1) foresees the streamlining of three Delegations, Costa Rica, Sri Lanka and Trinidad and Tobago. As a result of this decision, the Commission proposes to accredit to each of the three governments a Head of Delegation in a neighbouring country as non-resident Head of Delegation. The Delegations will remain in place manned by a single official as chargé d'affaires with his own local staff. This will enable it to follow as today the traditional issues of development co-operation but also political and economic matters, including trade.

In the framework of the same Communication the Commission decided to close seven of its existing Offices, Antigua and Barbuda, São Tomé e Príncipe, Equatorial Guinea, Belize, Comores, Netherlands Antilles and Tonga.

Closing these Offices however does not mean that the Commission has changed its commitment in its relations with the countries affected. Responsibility for its activities will remain with regional Delegations whose Heads of Delegation will continue to be accredited to those countries. The Commission is convinced that this restructuring of External Service will allow it to maintain the close co-operation that it already enjoys with them. Indeed, the Commission's aim is to strengthen relations, improve the management of aid and make the best use of scarce resources by pooling expertise in one Delegation to be made available to a whole region.

The Communication of 3 July 2001 on the Development of the External Service foresees the opening of seven new Delegations: Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal Saudi Arabia, Paraguay and Singapore.

Moreover, consideration will be given to opening a trade representation office in Taiwan.

A regular presence in Cuba will also be considered in the light of internal developments and the forthcoming closure of the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

A list of External Representations (changes indicated above are due to be implemented by the end of 2002) is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) COM(2001) 381 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/340

(2004/C 78 E/0357)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/01

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Subject: Restitution of property in the applicant countries

I refer to my Written Question E-0998/00 (1) to the Council. Recent developments in Poland appear to have blocked the possibility of assets being restored to Jewish and other émigrés from Poland. Will the Commission please state whether it believes that to be the case and, if so, what bearing the Commission considers this to have on the eligibility of Poland for early accession to the Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Polish law on the restitution of property has been vetoed by the President and there was an insufficient majority in the Polish Parliament to overturn the veto when the law was returned for the vote.

In issuing his veto, the President made clear that claimants were in a position to seek compensation, as the existing legal framework in Poland allows for such cases to be heard by the courts.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to his Written Question E-998/00 (2). In this instance there is no specific ‘acquis’ relating to the question raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will continue to monitor closely the applicant countries' compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, enshrined in the treaties.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 13.

(2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 13.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Subject: Creation of the Mediterranean Bank and Immigration Observatory

Recent press reports have claimed that the Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, intends to propose the creation of a Mediterranean Bank (to support joint investment and development projects in the Mediterranean area) and an Immigration Observatory relating to the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean.

Can the Commission state:

- whether these reports are correct; and

- how and when it intends to set up these institutions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The President of the Commission has announced a number of initiatives to strengthen relations with the Mediterranean partners including a proposal to study the setting up of a Euro-Mediterranean Bank and of a mechanism for the regular monitoring of migration flows.

Following this and at the request of the European Council at Laeken held in December 2001, the Commission and Council examined the setting up of a new Euro-Mediterranean Bank. On the basis of these reflections, the European Council held 15/16 March in Barcelona endorsed the setting up of a reinforced Euro-Mediterranean Investment Facility within the EIB, complemented by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership arrangement and a EIB representative office located in the area. It was also agreed that one year after the launching of this Facility, a decision on the incorporation of an EIB majority owned subsidiary dedicated to Mediterranean Partner Countries will be considered.

As regards migration, the Commission is actively engaged with the Council and the Mediterranean partners on the elaboration of guidelines for a Euro-Mediterranean regional co-operation programme on Justice and Home Affairs. This programme will contain a significant section on issues related to migration in which the setting up of the proposed monitoring mechanism could be considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: The Bahamas

In relation to the Bahamas can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0106/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Euro and ERM II

If the UK were to decide to join the euro, would it have to participate in ERM II? If so, for what length of time would it have to be a member of ERM II?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-3181/00(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 36 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0225/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Belize

In relation to Belize can the Commission provide a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget for 2001 and indicate the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/02

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Ban on catgut in the Federal Republic of Germany

The German authorities have banned the use of catgut as surgical sutures because of its animal origins, even if the raw material comes from stocks which are not at risk. At the end of November 2001, the Scientific Steering Committee set up on the basis of Directive 93/42/EEC(1) classified catgut as safe.

Does the Commission judge this state of affairs to be compatible with Community law?

Does it intend to take action against the Federal Republic of Germany?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The question submitted to the Commission by the Honourable Member refers to an opinion delivered by the Scientific Steering Committee at the end of November 2001. The Commission draws the attention to the fact that the opinion focuses on sourcing from GBR I (Geographical BSE Risk category I) countries only. Sourcing from other GBR categories (II, III and IV) was not addressed. It effectively considers safe the material of animal origin from closed herds and GBR I countries, including catgut.

The Commission would like to highlight that tissue used in catgut cannot undergo inactivation that would ensure it to be prion negative the tissue's molecular structure would suffer damage making it unusable for that purpose. Therefore sourcing plays a determinant role.

At the level of risk management, however, different elements may intervene, including the public's perception on the degree of safety and the level of health protection provided, in particular when suitable alternatives are available on the market. The Commission examines with Member States the consequences to be drawn from this opinion in the light of such elements. In that context, it will take position on the German measures.