ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3283/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006

In the current programming period Objective 1 regions are those whose per capita GDP measured in standard purchasing power and calculated on the basis of Community data for the three most recent years available on 26 March 1999 is less than 75 % of the average in the 15 Member States which currently make up the EU.

In addition to this consideration, it is undoubtedly the case now that the average in the applicant countries lies far below both this 75 % figure and average GDP in the existing Objective 1 regions, and this will certainly still be the case when the first applicant countries accede to the EU.

In view of these facts, will the Commission say what criteria will be employed in selecting the future Objective 1 regions in the next programming period beginning on 1 January 2007, after the accession of some of the applicant countries?

What guidelines will govern the approach in respect of structural aid to current Objective 1 regions in the EU which exceed the 75 % average when the new programming period commences on 1 January 2007 as a result of the accession of applicant countries? Is a transition or phasing-out period similar in nature to that of the current programming period being considered as an option? Or conversely, as would appear logical, will a new transition system be set up for those Objective 1 regions whose GDP exceeds 75 % of average GDP in the Member States as a whole, including the new Member States, but remains below that 75 % mark in respect of the Fifteen?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission is currently preparing the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which it expects to adopt in January 2001. The report will analyse the situation and the trend of cohesion within the fifteen Member States, the contribution of the various Community policies to cohesion and the situation in Europe after enlargement. On these bases, it will present alternatives for cohesion policy in future.

This report will therefore be a starting point for chosing the options for a future cohesion policy and launching a wide-ranging debate, in particular within the framework of a Forum on Cohesion, which the Commission will organise in first half of 2001 with the participation of Parliament.

At the proper time and on the basis of discussions with the other institutions, the Commission will be submitting its proposals on future cohesion policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Top rate of tax on personal incomes in each country of the European Union

Would the Commission please draw up a table showing the current top rate of tax on personal incomes in each country of the European Union, indicating in respect of each the threshold of income (expressed in euros and pounds sterling) at which this tax rate applies?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2795/00, E-2796/00 and E-2797/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The three questions mainly relate to taxation of individuals. There is a great diversity among Member States on the way this taxation is organised. This has to do with the progressivity of the tax scales, the definition of the tax bases, the exemptions (e.g. for some social security benefits), the tax deductions such as family allowances, and special schemes for capital income or real estate. Given the complexity of these issues that are not harmonised at Community level, it is difficult to make comparisons of specific tax provisions in the Member States and to draw conclusions on the tax burden on the basis of the top marginal rate of these taxes.

The Commission is working on an improvement of information on the tax systems in the Member States. As a first step, the national data collected in the Inventory of Taxes levied in the Member States of the European Union(1) have been updated (rates as percentage as of 1 January 1999). The top rates of state tax on personal income with their respective thresholds of income, according to information received from Member States, are listed below. In some countries, regional or local taxes are also levied. These may be quite substantial. The top rate of these regional and local taxes may be higher than the top rate of the state tax.

>TABLE>

The top rates of personal inheritance tax are as follow:

>TABLE>

Furthermore capital gains are usually taxed as personal or corporate income. A few Member States do not levy tax on capital gains at all. There is wide range of tax rates on these revenues.

(1) Next edition 2000 (situation on 1.1.1999) will be published in the near future by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3975/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Defective tyres

In the United States of America, the National Highway Traffic Society Administration, which is the road safety authority, has ordered the recall of 24 models of tyres which have shown high percentage risks of tread separation. These tyres, produced by Firestone Bridgestone USA, a subsidiary of the Japanese firm Bridgestone Corp., have mainly been fitted to Ford cars, but also to Nissan and General Motors vehicles.

Accidents caused by defective tyres have caused 88 deaths and 250 injuries in America, and 46 deaths and an unknown number of injuries in Venezuela. Apparently, tyres of this type have also been sold in 16 other countries.

The firms involved apparently concealed the defects in their tyres, which it is alleged they had been aware of for some time.

According to further very recent information, the NHTSA has also started an investigation into Goodyear, whose E type tyres may have been responsible for 31 accidents with 15 deaths. According to Goodyear, half of the 27 million tyres under investigation are still in use.

1. Does the Commission know whether these tyres are also sold in the European market?

2. If so, what urgent steps has the Commission taken to ensure that these dangerous tyres are immediately withdrawn from circulation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the risks posed by certain types of tyres and has taken action in order to examine the situation and measures taken in the Community in relation to the tyres in question.

The Commission contacted Firestone/Bridgestone Europe already in August 2000, in order to know what actions were planned for the European market. The company provided information showing that measures similar to those in the United States were being voluntarily launched in the Community.

On 12 September 2000 France notified the Commission through the Rapid Alert System (RAPEX), established by the Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992, on General Product Safety (GPSD)(1), of an order suspending the placing on the market of and requiring other measures in relation to three types of tyres produced by Bridgestone/Firestone.

Almost all Member States have reported to the Commission that recall actions have been launched on their respective territories. In addition, Commission officials met twice with representatives of Firestone/Bridgestone to be informed of the details of the recall campaign in Europe and its results.

The Emergencies Committee of the GPSD has reviewed progress on this subject at its meeting of 15 December 2000. There was general agreement that the measures taken by Firestone/Bridgestone were satisfactory and that no further measures were needed at Community level.

The Commission is following-up the progress with the voluntary recall launched by Bridgestone/Firestone as well as any other possible problems found in relation to some Goodyear tyres.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3598/00

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

(22 November 2000)

Subject: EU Action Plan on Drugs

Can the Commission say what steps it has taken, following adoption of the EU Action Plan on Drugs, to tighten up its internal coordination on drugs and safeguard the transparency and cohesion of the many budget headings allocated to drugs? Can it submit a table showing these various headings for 2000 and 2001? Can it confirm that it intends to carry out an external assessment of all its programmes on drugs, as has just been done for the EMCDDA?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Following the endorsement of the Union Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004) at Feira in June 2000, the Commission is analysing the impact of the Action Plan on its activities over the next five years, both in terms of its priorities and the allocation of its resources. This analysis will also cover the issue of coordination of drug related activities within the Commission.

A table summarising the drugs budget lines has been prepared and a copy is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission put great emphasis on evaluation in its Communication of May 1999 on an Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000-2004)(1), and regularly evaluates its programmes. For example, an interim evaluation of the Community Action Programme on the Prevention of Drug Dependence was carried out last year, and North-South Cooperation in the fight against drugs is being evaluated at the moment. As stated in point 2.2.1 of the Action Plan, the Commission intends to organise appropriate evaluations of the Drugs Strategy (2000-2004) at mid-term and on completion and to present them to the Council and the Parliament.

(1) COM(1999) 239 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Consistency in the development aid provided by the EU Member States

According to studies by several NGOs, the individual Member States provide very unequal amounts of development aid.

The 1 % of GDP allocated by Denmark is very different from Italy's 0,15 %. In some cases it might be said that greater economic strength results in feebler aid.

Does the Commission think it appropriate to propose that the Member States standardise their development aid and thus lay down a common minimum percentage of GDP to be used to eradicate poverty in the world?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

Official development assistance, measured in terms of a percentage of donor countries' gross national product (GNP) in line with the definitions approved by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), does vary widely from one country to another. In general the Commission believes international official development assistance, which has fallen to a fairly low level, should be stepped up. In the context of work on development financing within the UN, the Community has reaffirmed its commitment to cooperation and its desire to work towards meeting the target of 0,7 % of GNP. A number of Member States Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have either reached or exceeded this target. In 1999 the Community average was 0,31 % of GNP. In terms of international performance it is not clear that a specific European target would offer any added value. On the other hand, the scope for stepping up the Member States' performance does deserve to be examined, in particular as regards aid to the least advanced countries, by reference to the United Nations target of 0,15 % of GNP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG)

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the FIFG during the 1994-1999 programming period and what was the out-turn in each country?

Can it say what aggregate amounts have been allotted to each Member State under the FIFG in 2000 and what has been the out-turn to date in each country?

What is its assessment of FIFG out-turn in each Member State during the 1994-1999 programming period?

How does the Commission view FIFG out-turn so far in the year 2000 in the individual Member States?

Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the FIFG in Member States that are not implementing it fully or properly?

Could unused appropriations be transferred to Member States which are making full and effective use of the resources allocated to them?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2000)

The table below sets out the allocation of funds from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and their take-up under Objectives 1 and 5(a) of the Structural Funds in the 1994-1999 programming period.

>TABLE>

These figures are based on programming documents and execution reports. It should be remembered that programme execution and consequently the take-up of funds will continue until the end of 2001.

Regarding the transfer of unused funds, the Honourable Member should refer to the joint answer given by the Commission to Written Questions E-2705/99 and E-2706/99 from Mr Hudghton.(1)

The initial allocations to Member States under the FIFG for 2000-2006 are as follows:

>TABLE>

These figures are based on programming documents only. It is still too early to assess the implementation of these programmes, most of which have barely started. So far the Commission has not received any execution or evaluation reports.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3998/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Delays in the development of organic farming in Greece

A memorandum from the organisation for the inspection and certification of organic produce in Greece claims that the implementation of agro-environmental measures (organic farming), which is 75 % funded by the European Union, is significantly behind schedule. In particular, while the three-year programme for 1998-2000 provides for the cultivation of 14 000 hectares, only 3 000 hectares had been made available for organic farming by June 2000.

1. What data does the Commission have concerning the area over which agro-environmental measures have been implemented to date?

2. What amount of funds were earmarked in the 2nd CSF for aid to organic farming in Greece and what proportion of those funds has Greece taken up to date?

3. To what are the delays attributable and what consequences will they have?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The initial organic farming programme which Greece submitted under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements

of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside(1) was approved in July 1995 for 6 000 hectares (ha). An amended version of the programme, submitted in 1998 and approved in January 1999, increased that area by 14 000 ha. Of the 20 000 ha covered by the programme overall, farmers entered into agri-environmental commitments in respect of organic farming on 9 332 ha up to the end of 1999.

Of the 13,7 million total budget for the initial and amended versions of the organic farming programme during the period 1995-1999, approximately 7,4 million was paid to recipients by 31 December 1999. It should be added that the Community appropriations for the programme did not form part of the second Community support framework, since common agricultural policy (CAP) accompanying measures including agri-environment measures are part-financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

In view of the above, the Commission does not consider the delays to the Greek organic farming programme under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 to be significant particularly since the amended version of the programme was not approved until January 1999 and was therefore in effect operative (as regards entering into agri-environmental commitments) for only one farm year. The three-year programme to which the Honourable Member refers was, in practice, barely a one-year programme. It should also be pointed out that the programme is not primarily intended to supply the market with organic products (which is in fact the certification bodies' main concern) but rather to provide an environmental service to society, the latter being the objective of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92. The combination of these two objectives therefore makes the selection of recipients more demanding and rigorous.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3745/00

by Liam Hyland (UEN) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Dutch plan to construct a six-storey building for animals, fish and crops

Is the Commission aware of plans by the Dutch to construct a six-storey building (Agropark) for high-rise farming of pigs, chicken, salmon and crops which is meeting resistance from farmers on the grounds that holding 300 000 pigs in the same building could lead to a high risk of spreading disease and that, in addition, the plan to house 1 million chickens in the same building could lead to further health risks and does the Commission have any views on this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

However the Commission has not received detailed information to suggest that such a plan is not in compliance with the relevant Community legislation in particular regarding the field of environment, animal health and animal welfare.

It should be mentioned that day to day enforcement of Community law is the responsibility of the Member States. Therefore Dutch authorities are primarily in charge of ensuring that such a project complies with Community rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3221/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco directive derogation

The common position on the EU Directive on Tobacco will ban the manufacture in and export from the EU of cigarettes of above 10 mg of tar from 1 January 2004 in 14 out of the 15 Member States. It will, however, include a derogation for Greece that will allow manufacture, distribution and export of cigarettes above this level until 2007. Is this not a clear breach of single market and competition legislation which will discriminate against other EU manufacturers, particularly in the UK, who would be affected by a similar social economic impact?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The common position adopted by the Council on 31 July 2000(1) provides that, as from 1 January 2004, the yield of cigarettes released for free circulation, marketed or manufactured in the Member States shall not be greater than 10 mg per cigarette for tar.

As you have pointed out, the common position includes a temporary derogation for Greece with regard to the maximum tar yield of cigarettes manufactured and marketed within its territory. As a result, it will not be possible for cigarettes manufactured in Greece with tar yields over 10 mg to be marketed outside Greece.

As the Honourable Member is aware, this directive is intended to promote the elimination of those differences between the Member States' laws, regulations and administrative provisions on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products which impede the functioning of the internal market.

As a consequence of the case law of the Court of Justice, Community legislation should be applied uniformly in all the Member States. However, a derogation is possible when, as in this case, the derogation is objectively justified and limited in time.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000, p. 49.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3561/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Abolition of pig crates

A few years ago the Council and Parliament adopted a directive to phase out cages for keeping chickens, whilst pigs still live in unacceptable conditions, shut up in small spaces and often tied up up with rope or even chains. Some time ago the Commission announced that it intended to draw up a proposal to revise Directive 91/630(1) which should put an end to the practice of keeping pigs and sows in crates. However, the Directorate-General for Agriculture recently requested further information on the economic impact on the sector of the total abolition of crates and hence the submission of the proposal continues to be delayed.

Can the Commission say why, despite the fact that countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden have already banned the use of gestation crates and this measure has clearly not had serious economic repercussions, it continues to delay the submission of its proposal to revise Directive 91/630?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 33.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

The Commission proposal to amend Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991, laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, with a view to improving the welfare conditions of pigs is almost finalized and will be submitted before the end of this year to the Council and to the Parliament.

The Commission proposal will address the following aspects: the rules for keeping sows in social groups, separate areas adapted to the normal behaviour patterns of pigs, the proper enrichment of the environment and improvements in the quality of flooring surfaces.

Information available to the Commission confirms that in recent years five Member States have adopted legislation for the protection of pigs providing additional measures than those required under Council Directive 91/630/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3220/00

by Mary Honeyball (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Development of the Akamas, Cyprus

Will the Commission comment on the Cyprus Government's pending decision to allow the development of the Akamas Peninsular for tourism and assess whether such a decision is compatible with the European Union's Natura 2000 environmental policy?

Will the Commission say how this issue is being tackled during accession negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2000)

As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-2905/00 of Mr Davies(1), the Commission is following closely the issue of the Akamas peninsula through the various means at its disposal, which include the chapter of the accession negotiations relating to the environment, on-going technical contacts with the Cypriot authorities on environmental questions, and the various pre-accession instruments, such as the regular report on progress towards accession. The Commission gave a detailed briefing on the Akamas issue to the Community/Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee on 10 October 2000.

In March 2000 the Cypriot authorities took certain interim decisions intended to provide for sustainable management of the Akamas peninsula. The authorities have informed the Commission that final decisions would be taken after a dialogue with the interested parties, taking account of the relevant Community acquis, and international and national obligations.

As part of the preparations for accession in relation to the environment, Cyprus will, in respect of the habitats directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2), present a list of proposed sites to be designated as special areas of conservation for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. The proposal will include a clear definition of the boundaries of the areas in question. A project under the LIFE programme,

which is assisting the Cypriot authorities in this task, has identified the Akamas region in an indicative list of such areas. The designation of Natura 2000 sites is due to be completed in the latter half of 2001. In the interim period the Commission will continue to monitor whether Cyprus complies with the spirit of the legislation by preserving the conservation interests of the region.

(1) See p. 19.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.