do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/99 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission. Functional foods.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer information, dietary product, labelling, margarine, marketing

C 219 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

(2000/C 219 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Can the Commission explain its objections to the new Unilever cholesterol-lowering margarine which was
initially approved by the Novel Foods Committee in the Netherlands?

(2000/C 219 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Does the Commission feel that it is justified to delay the launch of the Unilever cholesterol-lowering
margarine, considering that a similar product made by Raisio in Finland is already on the market in
Finland and will be marketed in several EU countries by McNiels?

(2000/C 219 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Does the Commission believe that the Finnish brand of cholesterol-lowering margarine, produced by
Raisio, should be investigated further now that concerns have been raised over the launch of Unilever(cid:146)s
equivalent brand?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1455/99, E-1456/99, E-1457/99 and E-1458/99
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The Commission does not intend to propose new Community provisions for the labelling of so-called
(cid:145)functional foods(cid:146). This category does not currently exist in Community law, and the products concerned
are therefore subject to the general provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 (1)
on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

In 1997, Unilever submitted in the Netherlands a request for placing on the Community market a yellow
fat spread with added phytosterol-esters, under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the
Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (2). Unilever must have
considered that its product was not substantially equivalent to the product made in Finland by Raisio, as it
did not invoke Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 which lays down an abbreviated procedure for
products which are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food ingredients.

The Commission itself did not
the Dutch
authorities concerning the Unilever product. Reasoned objections were however presented by several
Member States; hence an authorisation can only be granted under the procedure laid down in Article 13 of

formulate objections to the initial assessment report of
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1380/99 by Johannes SWOBODA Income tax levied on assets in a Member State of the Union
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, SWOBODA
Subjects: Austria, Spain, double taxation, infringement of EU law, property tax, tax harmonisation

C 27 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1380/99

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Income tax levied on assets in a Member State of the Union

At the request of an Austrian citizen who owns a house in Spain, I wish to ask the Commission:

1. Does this make the Austrian liable to income tax in Spain (cid:129) whether or not he lets the house?

2. Would he be liable to income tax only if he let the house to a third party?

3. Does this arrangement infringe EU legislation (e.g. avoidance of double taxation)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1999)

The Spanish legislation provides that residents and non-residents who own a property in Spain, even if
that property is occupied by the owner and is a non-rented property, have to include in their income,
subject to personal income tax, 2 % of its adjusted rateable value. In case of non-residents the income tax is
levied at a flat rate of 25 %. For residents, the rate of taxation is the marginal rate of personal income tax
applied to taxable income (up to 56 %).

According to the convention of 20 December 1966 concluded between Austria and Spain for the
avoidance of double taxation, modified by the Protocol of 24 February 1995, and in particular Articles 6
and 24(1)(a), income from immovable property is taxable solely where the property is located, i.e. in Spain
in the present case. So, no double taxation of such income could take place for that taxpayer.

The Commission does not see how that legislation, which does not appear to contain any discriminatory
provisions, could be in infringement with Community law.

(2000/C 27 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1381/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Deregulation of public transport services

Will the Commission please state the extent to which deregulation of public transport services has taken
place to date in each EU Member State.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1999)

The Commission sponsored the (cid:145)Isotope(cid:146) research report which distinguished between (a) deregulation, in
which there is open access to the market (competition (cid:145)on the ground(cid:146)); (b) limited competition, in which
operators hold exclusive rights for particular routes or areas but have to take part in competitive tendering
every few years (competition (cid:145)for the ground(cid:146)); (c) the classical model, in which an operator enjoys an
exclusive right indefinitely without competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/99 by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Regional Development Programme (RDP).
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: eligible region, exchange of information, operational programme, regional policy

C 170 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

(2000/C 170 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1574/99

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and
Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Regional Development Programme (RDP)

What is the deadline for the submission to the European Union of Regional Development Programmes for
the period 2000-2006 by Member States with Objective 1 regions?

(2000/C 170 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/99

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and
Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Regional Development Programme (RDP)

In view of the regional and local elections which coincide with the timetable for the preparation of the
various RDPs in Spain, does the Commission intend to extend the planned deadline for the subsmission of
RDPs for the period 2000-2006 so as to facilitate an institutional consensus and the consultation of the
social partners with regard to the RDPs?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1574/99 and E-1575/99
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

The second subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999
laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) states that the regional development plans must
be submitted, unless otherwise agreed with the Member State concerned, not later than four months after
the list of eligible Objective 1 regions has been drawn up. As the Commission adopted that list on 1 July
1999, the deadline for submitting the Objective 1 plans is 1 November 1999. At the Member State(cid:146)s
request and if the Commission agrees, this deadline can be extended to facilitate preparation of the plan.

(1) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 170 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1576/99

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and
Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Regional Development Programme (RDP)

What is the position of the Commission with regard to RDPs for the period 2000-2006 submitted by
Member States with Objective 1 regions without the requisite political, institutional and social dialogue
having taken place?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), Member States submit their
regional development plans after consultation with the partners as defined in Article 8 of that Regulation
(regional and local authorities and other public authorities, economic and social partners, other relevant
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1551/99 by Graham WATSON Subsidies for organic farmers
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: EU financing, common agricultural policy, organic farming

29.1.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 27 E/127

(2000/C 27 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1550/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo

Is the Commission aware that a number of members of Amnesty International have been detained by the
Togolese authorities following the publication of a report by AI which reveals compelling evidence that
intimidation, torture and extrajudicial executions were commonplace during and after the 1998 presiden-
tial election campaign?

What pressure will
the Commission bring to bear the Togolese authorities given the demands for
upholding democratic rights and principles placed on signatory nationals of the Fourth LomØ Convention
in Article 5?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1999)

The Commission is aware of the report entitled Togo: Rule of Terror published by Amnesty International
on 5 May 1999. However, being unable to confirm or deny the extremely serious occurrences denounced
in the report, it would support an international inquiry, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations.

The Commission has taken a consistent stand since 1992, when it suspended financial and technical
cooperation because of grave human rights violations.

Following serious irregularities reported in the course of the presidential election in June 1998, it held
consultations with Togo. The EU informed the Togolese authorities that cooperation would not resume as
long as there continued to be blatant violations of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law,
the key principles set out in Article 5 of the LomØ Convention that underpin relations between the EU and
the ACP countries.

Since then, the only projects implemented have been decentralised cooperation projects directly benefiting
the people of Togo, and projects to uphold human rights.

At the same time, the Commission intends to continue to support the mission of the European facilitators
which has brought about dialogue between the authorities and the Togolese opposition with a view to
organising direct elections in a democratic and transparent manner.

(2000/C 27 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Subsidies for organic farmers

Given food scandals in Britain and, more recently, on the continent does the Commission believe that
measures which disadvantage organic farming practices are becoming increasingly untenable?

Does the Commission agree that tiering subsidies, thus enabling the farmer to have more capital to
expand, might be one approach in encouraging alternative forms of farming from conventional, intensive
practices?
99/601/EC: Commission Decision of 1 September 1999 amending Decision 1999/551/EC as regards the review of the protective measures with regard to contamination by dioxins (notified under document number C(1999) 2880) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, animal nutrition, animal product, health control, human nutrition, toxic substance

2. 9. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 232/33

COMMISSION DECISION

of 1 September 1999

amending Decision 1999/551/EC as regards the review of the protective measures with regard to
contamination by dioxins

(notified under document number C(1999) 2880)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/601/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11
December 1989 concerning veterinary checks
in intra-
Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal
market (1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC (2), and in
particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June
1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable
in intra-Community trade in certain live animal and products
with a view to the completion of the internal market (3), as last
amended by Directive 92/118/EEC, and in particular Article
10(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Article 2 of Commission Decision 1999/551/EC of 6
August 1999 amending Decision 1999/449/EC on
protective measures with regards to contaminatison by
dioxins on certain products of animal origin intended
for human or animal consumption (4) provides that
Decision 1999/551/EC must be reviewed before 31
August 1999, notably on the basis of information to be
submitted by the Belgian authorities. The Belgian author-
ities have informed the Commission that the relevant

information is currently being prepared and is not yet
available. It is, therefore, appropriate to set a new date
for the review of Decision 1999/551/EC.

(2)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of the Standing veterinary
Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the first paragraph of Article 2 of Decision 1999/551/EC,
‘before 31 August 1999’ is replaced by ‘as soon as possible and
in any case not later than 30 September 1999’.

This Decision is addressed to the Member State.

Article 2

Done at Brussels, 1 September 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.
(3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999, p. 42.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1393/99 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission. Subsidies for Vion VVaG.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, economic concentration, economic support, insurance company, merger control

C 170 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

(2000/C 170 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1393/99

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Subsidies for Vion VVaG

The Hanover insurance company HDI Haftpflichtverband der deutschen Industrie and the Bavarian
insurance company HUK-Coburg propose to merge in July 1999. The registered office of the new firm
resulting from the merger, Vion VVaG, is to be in Coburg. The decision on the location of the office was
taken as a result of substantial financial incentives from the Land of Bavaria, the level of which is not
publicly known.

1.
Is the European Commission aware of the financial assistance for Vion VVaG from the government
of the Land of Bavaria? If so, what level of assistance is being provided by the Land of Bavaria in this case?

2.

Have the subsidies and incentives from the Land of Bavaria been notified as aid to the Commission?

Are such subsidies compatible with European law on competition and aid, and in particular

3.
Article 87 of the EC Treaty?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission has been informed that the merger of HDI Haftplichtverband der Deutschen Industrie and
HUK-Coburg to Vion Vvag will not take place and that no state aid measures have taken place.

On the basis of this information the Commission will thus not further investigate the matter.

(2000/C 170 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/99

by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Contradictions arising from assistance under structural objectives

There is a sharp difference between the economies of the economically strongest areas of the European
Union and structurally weak areas. The aim of European structural policy is to bridge this gap. To that
end, the European Commission has determined six main tasks of structural policy and defined them as
(cid:145)objectives(cid:146).

1.
Is the Commission aware of contradictions arising from assistance granted under structural objec-
tives, where, for example, a business relocates, in order to receive EU funds, from an area which is not
structurally weak to an area qualifying for assistance, but as a consequence of the relocation hundreds of
jobs are lost at the old location and the economic strength of the town or city is diminished?

2. What does the Commission intend to do in order to remove this paradox, which involves jobs being
created on the one hand and destroyed on the other?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1557/99 by Rolf LINKOHR Questions on the EU complaints procedure - Directive 65/65/ EEC
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, LINKOHR
Subjects: EU policy, alternative medicine, market approval, medicinal product

C 27 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/99

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1999)

Subject: The 3 000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbia

In the last days of the international policing operations in Kosovo, some three thousand Kosovar prisoners
were abducted and forcibly transferred to Serbian prisons by Serbian military and paramilitary forces. The
prisoners include Prof. Ukshin Hoti, a prominent member of the opposition, whose prison sentence
expired in May 1999 and who has been nominated for the EP(cid:146)s 1999 Sakharov Prize, and Mr Albin Kurti,
former leader of the Pristina students(cid:146) movement.

Can the Council provide detailed information about the whereabouts and conditions of detention of
Prof. Hoti, Mr Kurti and the three thousand Kosovar prisoners still being held in Serbia?

What steps does the Council
intend to take to ensure that the Belgrade authorities immediately and
unconditionally release these 3 000 people and allow them to be reunited with their families in Kosovo?

Will the Council provide all the necessary assurances that neither the sanctions nor the embargo on Serbia
and Yugoslavia will be lifted until the Belgrade authorities release all the Kosovar prisoners currently held
in Yugoslav prisons?

Reply

(22 October 1999)

Regarding detailed information about the whereabouts and conditions of detention of these prisoners, the
Council wishes to inform the Honourable Parliamentarian that the ICRC has been allowed access to
Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities and that it has identified 2 000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners so far.
On the issue of sanctions relief, the Council wishes to reassure the Honourable Parliamentarian that
progress in democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities will be key elements in deciding
the lifting of sanctions targeting the Belgrade regime.

(2000/C 27 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Questions on the EU complaints procedure (cid:129) Directive 65/65/EEC

Has the Commission ascertained to what extent other EU States have fulfilled these requirements, and

1.
what steps is it taking in this regard in the other EU States which are affected?

2.
Can these scientific publications, as the only evidence that the products are effective and harmless, be
considered to be a list of published references within the meaning of Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65/
EEC (1)?

3. What, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, are the prospects for the applicant achieving mutual European
recognition for complementary medicinal products, for example through setting up a committee for
alternative medicinal products?

(1) OJ L 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1571/99 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Illegal marketing of genetically modified maize by the Pioneer seed company.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, genetically modified organism, maize, marketing, seed

C 170 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

(2000/C 170 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1571/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Illegal marketing of genetically modified maize by the Pioneer seed company

At the beginning of May 1999 it became known that the Pioneer Hi-Bred seed company in southern
Germany had purchased genetically modified maize that had not received approval.

1. Was the Commission informed of this infringement of EU regulations and of the infringement of the
German law on genetic engineering?

2.

On what date was the Commission informed about the infringement?

3. What measures will the Commission take and what conclusions will it draw from this infringement?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1999)

The Commission was informed on 31 May 1999 that, in southern Germany, seed was distributed which
possibly contained genetically modified seed that had not received approval
in the Community. The
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) mentioned have been found in sacks of supposedly GMO-free
Pioneer maize. The alleged infringement of Community law has yet to be confirmed. The infringement of
German law does not have to be assessed by the Commission (as far as Community law is not concerned).

The Commission has invited the German authorities to take a position. As tests to confirm whether there
were unauthorised GMOs present or not are still ongoing, there is no reply as yet. It should be added that
for the time being, it appears to be premature to use the word (cid:145)infringement(cid:146), since the question still needs
to be assessed.

(2000/C 170 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Lack of limit values for dioxins and PCBs

In view of the dioxin scandal
in Belgium and the fact that recital 5 of the Commission decision of
3 June 1999 noted that no maximum levels for dioxin contamination are set for individual basic
ingredients and foodstuffs and that there are no maximum levels for dioxins at international, Community
or national level:

1. Why has the Commission failed to set a limit value for PCBs, dioxins or other chlorine compounds?

2. When will the Commission correct this omission?

3. When exactly can a directive or regulation containing such limit values to be expected?

4.

Is the Commission taking steps to set up an independent, neutral foodstuffs monitoring centre at
EU level?