WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Transposition of Community legislation into the law of the Member States.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, national implementing measure

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/247

they must be mainly financed by households and/or private insurance
To provide market services,
companies, or mainly financed by general government if they provide services for the general government
at economically significant prices.

It they are non-market, on the contrary, they must be classified in the general government sector.

As regards the interest-free loans from the L(cid:228)nder to the clinics, if Austrian public clinics are institutional
units providing market services, this should be treated as follows:

(cid:129) If the provision of funds is an unrequited transaction, that is if loans are made with no likelihood of

repayment, it should be treated as a capital transfer;

(cid:129) If the provision of funds implies a repayment to the government under contractual conditions (the
date of repayment is explicit) and there is a clear likelihood of repayment, it should be treated as
interest on the loan which is being waived might be considered
a loan. However, the potential
a subsidy to the provision of services.

Concerning the transfer of property to the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG) it should be recalled that
according to the ESA 95 principles:

(cid:129) If most BIG activity is devoted to providing services to general government units, then it should be

classified in the general government sector;

(cid:129) If BIG is renting/leasing mostly outside general government, it should be treated as a non-financial

corporation.

A final decision on BIG classification, however, will be taken by Eurostat following the forthcoming visit to
the Austrian Central Statistical Office.

(2001/C 364 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Transposition of Community legislation into the law of the Member States

According to the biannual scoreboard published by the Commission, there are significant delays in the
In particular, 11 % of Community
transposition of Community legislation into the Member States.
legislation enacted is not transposed into the national
law of the Member States within the specified
deadlines, and only three Member States (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) seem to be honouring the
commitment made at the Lisbon Summit to transpose 98,5 % of Community legislation into their national
law by 2002. According to Commissioner Bolkestein, the following countries, in declining order, are in
danger of not attaining the target of transposing Community legislation by March 2002: Greece, France,
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Austria and Germany.

Given the above data, will the Commission say whether it considers that Portugal(cid:146)s decision to appoint
a person with exclusive responsibility for transposing Community legislation into its national law is an
effective measure and whether it intends to propose that other Member States adopt a similar approach to
ensure that they attain the goal set at the Lisbon Summit?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

It is for Member States to decide how they wish to organise themselves with a view to transposing
Community legislation into national law. Some Member States, such as Portugal, Sweden and Luxembourg,
have appointed national transposition co-ordinators who are responsible for ensuring that steps are taken
to transpose Community legislation on time. The results from the May 2001 Internal Market Scoreboard
reveal that these Member States have reduced their transposition deficits successfully. Sweden(cid:146)s deficit of

C 364 E/248

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

0,5 % is the lowest of all Member States. Luxembourg and Portugal, with deficits of 2 % and 2,7 %
respectively, have each moved up four places in the overall ranking since they appointed a national
transposition co-ordinator.

The Commission encourages the exchange of best practice on transposition, such as the appointment of
transposition co-ordinators and/or regular reporting on progress to national parliaments, particularly
through the Internal Market Advisory Committee. It expects Member States to consider these experiences
as part of their efforts to attain the 1,5 % deficit target set by the European Council for Spring 2002.

(2001/C 364 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/01

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Brussels: a capital for Europe?

According to press reports, the Belgian Prime Minister and the Commission President have organised
a discussion forum on the role of Brussels as capital of Europe.

1.

Does the President(cid:146)s involvement stem from a Commission decision?

If so, does the Commission think it right to intervene in this way regarding the seat of the

2.
institutions by coming out on the side of Brussels? Can it justify its attitude?

3.

4.

If not, should the Commission President be considered to be acting in a personal capacity?

Is he willing to show the same kind of support for Luxembourg and Strasbourg?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, took part in the discussion forum referred to by the Honourable
Member as a follow-up to Declaration No 22 annexed to the Treaty of Nice relating to the venues for
European Councils. The Commission recalls that the Declaration states that (cid:145)As from 2002, one European
Council meeting per Presidency will be held in Brussels. When the Union comprises 18 members, all
European Council meetings will be held in Brussels.(cid:146)

The discussions at this event sponsored by Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Prodi were purely an intellectual
exercise with a view to clarifying the image and role of Brussels in the light of the European Council
Declaration: there was no intention of calling into Question the decisions on the seats of the institutions,
determined by the EC Treaty.

Thus the last Question is superfluous.

(2001/C 364 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2226/01

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Tobacco directive, Article 7

Can the Commission confirm that the descriptor ban on normal-strength cigarettes does not apply to
cigarettes exported outside the EU?