european parliament - eur-lex

3. 11. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 296/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

WRITTEN QUESTION No 1836/82 by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark (ED — GB)

to the Commission of the European Communities

(10 January 1983)

Subject: Competence of national officials when administering European Community matters

A recent case in the County of East Sussex, United Kingdom, raises some interesting questions about the status of national government officials when administering European Community matters.

A farmer in East Sussex submitted a perfectly routine and valid application for payment under the European Community ewe premium scheme in spring last year, well before the closing date for such applications had elapsed. Subsequently it was established that the form had gone astray and payment was refused by United Kingdom Government officials because they had not been in possession of an application before the closing date.

To assist in the handling of any similar cases which may arise in the future, can the Commission please comment: 1. On the extent to which national officials have

discretion when administering European Community schemes?

2. On the extent to which Commission measures allow any discretion, for example in cases of genuinely lost or mislaid documents?

3. On the degree of accountability of national officials to the Commission?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Thorn on behalf of the Commission

to Written Question No 1836/82

(9 September 1983)

Further to its answer of 7 March 1983(0, the Commission is now able to inform the Honourable Member of the results of its research.

Responsibility for EAGGF guarantee payments made by Member States on behalf of the Fund pursuant to Community agricultural legislation rests with the Member States concerned. Paying agencies are appointed by the Member States to implement the regulations and the Commission has no authority to decide as to how the provisions concerned should be interpreted. However, only payments which are in accordance with Community agricultural legislation are chargeable to the EAGGF.

The discretion which Member States enjoy in administering the common agricultural policy varies therefore according to the provisions of the relevant Community legislation.

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member the application was based on Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2660/80 (2), which provides that 'application for the premium shall be lodged during a period determined by each Member State'. Accordingly, it is for each Member State to exercise its discretion in fixing the period for the lodging of applications.

Such time limits must be strictly observed in order to fulfil their purpose. However, where a Member State pays a premium to an applicant who has failed to meet a time limit owing to force majeure and a refusal to grant the aid would be out of proportion, bearing in mind the objectives of the time limit, the Commission will regard such payment as lawful.

According to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, the principle of proportionality is a general principle of Community law, which applies even if it is not expressly referred to in the relevant Regulation. The concept of force majeure may be applied when this is necessary. It covers cases of absolute impossibility and unusual circumstances outside the applicant's control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice, where these circumstances are an obstacle which prevents the applicant from complying with the normal time limit.

No C 296/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 11. 83

It is in the first instance for the Member State concerned to weigh up the facts and assess whether these conditions are fulfilled in a particular case, bearing in mind that the burden of proving force majeure rests on the person alleging it. The Commission takes the Honourable Member's question to mean that in the case to which he refers the application for the ewe premium was posted in due time but was lost in the post. It would appear to the Commission that in such a case an applicant can only show that he has exercised all due care so as to rely on force majeure, where he has sent his application, as an example, by 'recorded delivery' service (or other similar schemes whereby a receipt or an acknowledgement is retained by the applicant).

Although individual officials are not accountable to the Commission it is nevertheless true that the Member States are accountable to the Community as regards the application of Community legislation and the final consequences of their decisions.

(1) OJNoC 104, 18.4. 1983. (2) OJ No L 276, 20. 10. 1980.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 221/83 by Mr Pierre-Bernard Couste (DEP — F)


(28 April 1983)

Subject: Problems and successes in the field of company law

Can the Commission give details of the implementation in the various Member States of the Directives so far adopted on company law, i.e. the first, second, third and fourth Directives, indicating the problems or successes that have accompanied their application?

When does the Commission envisage that the planned fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth Directives will be ready for submission to the Council and Parliament for consideration?

Is it true that the Directive on the splitting up of companies is on the point of being adopted and that it will in fact be the sixth Directive on company law?

Answer given by Mr Narjes on behalf of the Commission

(2 September 1983)

The Council has already adopted six company law Directives. These are: The first Directive (68/151/EEC) of 9 March 1968 (!) on disclosure, the validity of obligations entered into by a company and nullity of companies;

The second Directive (77/91/EEC) of 10 December 1976 (2) on the formation of public limited companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital;

The third Directive (78/855/EEC) of 9 October 1978 (3) on mergers of public limited companies; The fourth Directive (78/660/EEC) of 25 July 1978 (4) on annual accounts of companies; The sixth Directive (82/891/EEC) of 17 December 1982 (5) on divisions of public limited companies; The seventh Directive (83/349/EEC) of 13 June 1983 on consolidated accounts (6).

The first Directive has been implemented in Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; the second Directive in Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom; the third Directive in Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands; and the fourth Directive in Denmark and the United Kingdom.

The Commission believes that where Directives have already been implemented, the coordination thus achieved has rendered equivalent the safeguards which are required of companies for the protection of the interests of members and others in the areas covered. Nevertheless the Commission regrets that as not all Member States have been able to implement adopted Directives in their national legislation within the relevant time limits, it has had to take infringement proceedings against those Member States concerned (7).

The proposed Directives which have not yet been adopted by the Council are:

The amended proposal for a fifth Directive on the structure of public limited companies and the powers and obligations of their organs, which has been adopted by the Commission on 29 July 1983 (8), takes account of the opinion delivered by the European Parliament last year (9).

The amended proposal for an eighth Directive on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out statutory audits (10) is also under discussion in the


Council and might be adopted before the end of the year. The European Parliament gave its opinion on this measure in 1979 (n) .

(») OJ No L 65, 14. 3. 1968. (2) OJ No L 26, 13. 1. 1977. (3) OJ No L 295, 20. 10. 1978. (4) OJ No L 222, 14. 8. 1978. (5) OJNoL378, 31. 12. 1982. (6) OJ No L 193, 18. 7. 1983. (7) In respect of the second Directive see Court of Justice

Cases 136/81 Italy, 148/81 Belgium, 149/81 Luxembourg and 151/81 Ireland, OJ No C 299, 16. 11. 1982; Infraction proceedings have also been started against those Member States who have not yet implemented the fourth Directive.

(8) COM(83) 185 final. (9) OJ No C 149, 14. 6. 1982.

(10) OJ No C 317, 18. 12. 1979. (H) OJNoC 140,5.6. 1979.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 305/83 by Ms Joyce Quin (S — GB)


(4 May 1983)

Subject: EEC data bases

Which of the data bases compiled by EEC institutions are currently available for public use? Can the Commission explain why the following data bases are not yet available for public use, and what confidential information they might contain? — ASMODE (which deals with the

implementation of Directives in Member States);

— PRC (which lists the proposals, recommendations and communications from the Commission, and follows their progress through the institutions);

— IFC (which is concerned with Community financial instruments);

— CERES (which contains information on studies done for the Commission).

Answer given by Mr Burke on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 1983)

The Commission data bases accessible to the public for interrogation are: CRONOS (statistics), COMEXT (external trade statistics), CELEX (Community law) and EURODICAUTOM (terminology). They cover a very wide range of documentation and statistics.

The Commission is considering ways of extending CELEX to cover certain non-internal information stored on the PRC (follow-up of proposals) and ASMODEE (application of Directives) files. The inclusion of ASMODEE will depend in part on how far development of the base progresses.

Under the new 1983-1985 CELEX development plan set out in the fourth report to the Permanent Representatives Committee, CELEX would be extended to include Commission proposals, national measures to implement Directives and national legislation. Whether the plans can be implemented on schedule will depend on the funds made available under the budget.

There will alway be a considerable volume of Commission documentation which is not suitable for direct public access, primarily for reasons of confidentiality. For example, information stored on the IFC base on loans granted under Community instruments is covered by banking secrecy. In other cases, notably ASMODEE, most of the information in the data base is procedural and internal to the Commission.

The CERES data base serves mainly as an administrative aid for keeping track of progress on studies under consideration and contracts in course of completion. The Honourable Member will readily see that this base, by its very nature, is of limited interest to the public, quite apart from the questions of confidentiality involved.

The Commission is anxious to provide the public with a full picture of Community activities. A wide range of information contained in the internal data bases referred to by the Honourable Member is made available to the public, though there is no direct access.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 341/83 by Mr Michael Welsh (ED — GB)


(10 May 1983)

Subject: Legal aid for tourists in Community Member States

At present a tourist from a Member State of the Community who wishes to pursue a claim for compensation and/or damages as a result of an incident which took place while on holiday in another Member State is unable to obtain legal aid in the country where the accident took place.


Thus my constituent, Miss Tracy Short of Blackpool, who was seriously injured when knocked down by a car in France in 1981, is unable to obtain legal aid from the British or French authorities in pursuing her claim for compensation against the driver of the car.

1. Would the Commission agree that the case of Miss Tracy Short reveals a serious gap in the law concerning free movement of persons in that she is unable to pursue her legal rights because of her lack of means?

2. Would the Commission accept that this amounts to a serious discrimination against tourists compared with migrant workers who would be able to claim legal aid under such circumstances?

3. Will the Commission undertake to consider the position of legal aid for tourists in the spirit of its communication on a Community Policy on Tourism (Bulletin Supplement 2/82) in which it draws attention to the importance of tourism which must imply the right of freedom of movement for all persons?

4. Will the Commission in its consideration of this problem look at the following possibilities:

(a) a Regulation establishing reciprocal legal aid privileges between Member States for all Community citizens analogous to the Regulations covering reciprocal health care. The principle would be that a Community citizen would have the same entitlement to legal aid as a national of the Member State in which the action was being brought;

(b) a Regulation to make cover for legal charges a compulsory feature of insurance policies for tourists?

5. In view of the urgency of this issue will the Commission undertake to produce a proposal before the end of this year?

Answer given by Mr Contogeorgis on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 1983)

Under Article 20 of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure of 1 March 1954, ratified by all the Member States except Ireland, Greece and the United Kingdom, nationals of each of the contracting States have the same entitlement to free legal aid in civil and commercial matters in the other States as nationals of the host State. The Hague Convention on International Access to Justice of 25 October 1980, ratified by France and signed by the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece and Luxembourg, extends this entitlement to persons having their habitual residence in a contracting State.

In addition, under Article 8 (1) of the European Convention on Establishment of 13 December 1955, ratified by all the Member States except France, nationals of the contracting States are entitled to free legal aid on the same terms as apply to nationals of the host State.

Under the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, which is in force in the original Member States and to which the new Member States have acceded (by the conventions of 9 October 1978 and 25 October 1982, not yet in force), an applicant who was entitled to legal aid in the State in which judgment was given will have the same entitlement in the State in which judgment is to be enforced.

It follows, then, that reciprocity could be secured between all the Member States either if France ratified the European Convention on Establishment or if Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom ratified the 1954 Hague Convention. The Commission is endeavouring to convince them of the need for this.

Lastly, there is a bilateral convention of 15 April 1936 by which France and the United Kingdom exempt each other's nationals from payment of security to cover legal costs and guarantee them free legal aid.

As regards insurance policies to cover legal aid, the Commission does not intend proposing a Regulation making cover for legal aid a compulsory feature of all insurance policies. However, it does consider it desirable that tourists should inform themselves of their rights under all the abovementioned conventions, and if not covered, of the desirability of taking out an insurance policy which includes cover for legal aid.

The granting of free legal aid is governed by the laws of the Member States.

3. 11.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 296/5

WRITTEN QUESTION No 428/83 by Mrs Annie Krouwel-Vlam (S — NL)


(31 May 1983)

Subject: 'Produktschappen' (produce boards)

Does the Commission not consider that the risk of fraud in connection with Community rules is greater if the latter are implemented by 'produktschappen' (produce boards), which are financed by levies paid by the relevant sector, than if this task is entrusted to official organizations which can operate independently of the undertakings concerned?

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Dalsager on behalf of the Commission

(18 August 1983)

The Commission would point out that the bodies applying Community provisions within the Member States, whether official agencies or agencies financed by the producers, are subject to control by the national administrations. Possibilities for fraud are not necessarily linked to the type of body chosen for these tasks but rather to the determination and the vigour with which the competent authorities of the Member States scrutinize and check the work of these agencies. The Commission has no reason to suppose that one type of organization is necessarily to be preferred to another.

In so far as the 'produktschappen' mentioned by the Honourable Member are entrusted with the application of Community law, they are financed by the national budget and not by levies paid by the market sector.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 435/83 by Mr Karl von Wogau (PPE — D)


(31 May 1983)

Subject: Double insurance for students attending German universities and covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for officials of the European Communities

1. Is the Commission aware of circular No 20/1982 of 2 March 1982 issued by the German liaison agency foreign insurance office, German Federation of Insurance Institutions, 1, Kortrijkstrasse, Bonn, which states that the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for officials of the European Communities is not an insurance

company within the meaning of paragraphs 173 (a) and 173 (d) of the Reich Insurance Code?

2. Does the Commission consider that the exclusion from the exemption clauses contained in paragraphs 173 (a) and 173 (d) of the Reich Insurance Code of the children of Community officials, who are compulsorily included in the cover provided by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, is adequately justified by the argument that they are unable to submit independent claims?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that its officials are no longer obliged to pay double insurance premiums for their children studying in the Federal Republic of Germany (German compulsory insurance and Community insurance)?

WRITTEN QUESTION No 615/83 by Mr Dieter Rogalla (S — D)


(27 June 1983)

Subject: Sickness insurance for European officials' children studying in Germany

The Commission's answer to Written Question No 108/83 (0 of 20 May 1983 was highly appreciated. I assume that the Commission is also conducting negotiations in respect of cases where students following courses of study in the Federal Republic of Germany are also covered by the sickness insurance scheme of officials of the European Communities. 1. Could the Commission issue confirmation to

this effect and state what position has been reached in such negotiations?

2. What practical difficulties remain in this connection and how does the Commission explain the fact that in Member States other than the Federal Republic such matters have clearly been settled to general satisfaction?

3. If necessary, is the Commission prepared to overcome any formal difficulties by proposing an amendment to the provisions of the European Community officials' sickness insurance scheme?

(1) OJ No C 197, 25. 7. 1983, p. 31.

Joint answer given by Mr Burke on behalf of the Commission

to Written Questions No 435/83 and No 615/83

(6 September 1983)

Since answering Mr Rogalla's Written Question No 805/82, the Commission continued discussion on this matter with the German authorities, but no solution has yet been found (•)•


As a result, the Commission has put the problem before an inter-institutional working party on conflict between national and Community law set up within the Staff Regulations Committee, which is the competent body for matters pertaining to the Staff Regulations of Community officials. This working party looked into the problem at the end of June 1983. However, it has not yet completed its deliberations, the results of which the Commission awaits before deciding how to proceed.

(!) OJ No C 333, 20. 12. 1982, p. 4.

2. There are at present four units at Gardanne. Three units have an output of 55 MW. Of these one has already been shut down, another is due to be shut down this year and the third is due to be shut down in 1985. The three plants taken together emitted some 4 000 kg of S02 per hour. By the end of this year emissions should be down to some 1 300 kg per hour. The fourth plant has an output of some 250 MW and emits some 6 840 kg of S02 per hour.

3. The design of the new 600 MW unit provides for combustion gas desulphurization.

4 and 5. Yes.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 448/83 by Mr Alfons Goppel (PPE — D)


(16 May 1983)

Subject: Consideration given to environmental protection in the extension of a lignite mine and the construction of a new generating unit at the thermal power station in Gardanne near Aix-en-Provence in southern France which have received financial support from the Community

EIB press release No 74/82 indicates that a loan of 38,5 million ECU was granted in October 1982 for the abovementioned projects and that this was preceded in November 1980 and April 1982 by loans totalling FF 500 million. 1. What is the sulphur content of the lignite mined

in Gardanne? 2. What are the levels of S02 emitted by the units

of the existing thermal power station, which is fuelled with this lignite?

3. What measures are envisaged to limit the S02

emissions of the new 600 MW unit to be constructed with the financial support of the EIB?

4. Are the resources provided by the EIB loans also designed to encourage these environmental protection measures?

5. Is the application of the most up-to-date environmental protection measures taken into account as a matter of principle when EIB loans are allocated for projects of this type?

WRITTEN QUESTION No 491/83 by Mr Alasdair Hutton (ED — GB)


(7 June 1983)

Subject: Edible frogs' legs and snails

1. Would the Commission provide the following statistics, in both tonnage and value terms, and broken down by Member States: — production and consumption of:

(a) edible frogs' legs, and (b) edible snails;

— intra-Community trade in these commodities; — trade with third countries in these commodities,

indicating the main trade products?

2. Are either of these commodities: — subject to common organization of the

markets, — subject to import levies or duties, or export

restitutions?

3. In which Member States is production of these commodities: — subject to controls (e.g. protection of species or

conservation orders); — aided by national production aids?

4. Would the Commission consider producers of edible frogs and snails to be eligible to benefit from Community aids to aquaculture?

5. Can the Commission recommend basic reference textbooks on production and trade of these two commodities?


(22 July 1983)

1. The sulphur content of the lignite intended for the Gardanne power station is some 5 %.


(1 September 1983)

1. The Commission cannot provide a complete set of the statistics requested, most of these not being


available from official sources in the Member States. This applies in particular to data on production and consumption. The following recent estimates are however, available on France, which is considered to be the world's major consumer: consumtion of frogs' legs: 5 000 tonnes per annum, nearly all imported consumption of snails: 30 000 — 40 000 tonnes per annum, of which 16 000 tonnes are imported (in live snail equivalent).

Regarding trade, official data are available on snails only (NIMEXE codes 03.03-66) and are shown in tables sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the European Parliament for the three-year period 1980-1982. However, the volume of external trade of frogs' legs as well as of preparations of frogs' legs and snails cannot be supplied, as these products are not separately shown but regrouped with other items under NIMEXE codes 02.04-92, 16.02-99 and 16.05-50. Estimates for France suggest that of the 5 000 tonnes frogs' meat imported 4 000 tonnes concern frogs' legs (mainly frozen from south-east Asia) and 1000 tonnes of live frogs (from Balkan countries). As to snails. France exports around 1 800 tonnes of preparations and preserves, mainly to its EEC-partners (55 %) and other OECD-countries (USA, Canada, Switzerland, Japan).

2. Edible frogs' legs are subject to Council Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 on the common market organization for certain products enumerated under Annex II of the Treaty (l), and edible snails are subject to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (2).

No export refunds are applied to these products, and common import duties are fixed as follows: — edible frogs' legs (Common Customs Tariff

subheading 02.04 C I): 10% ad valorem; edible snails (Common Customs Tariff subheading 03.03 B III): free;

— preparations of frogs' legs (Common Customs Tariff subheading 16. 02 B III b) 2 bb)): 26 % ad valorem; preparations of edible snails (Common Customs Tariff subheading 16.05 B): 20 % ad valorem.

3. The Commission will provide an answer to this point at a later date, after collecting complete information from the Member States.

The Commission does not actually possess any information on specific national measures of direct aid for the production of frogs and snails.

4. As the products mentioned are agricultural products in the sense of Article 38 of the EEC Treaty, these producers are, in principle, eligible to benefit from Community aid under the conditions

laid down in the different measures adopted within the common agricultural and fisheries policy.

5. The Commission cannot recommend any specific textbooks, but suggests that the Honourable Member consult competent university and other institutes, and in particular ITANI, Institut Technique de I'Aviculture, des productions de basse-Cour et des elevages des petits animaux, 28 rue du Rocher, 75008 Paris.

(!) OJ No L 151, 30. 6. 1968, p. 16. (2) OJ No L 379, 31. 12. 1981, p. 1.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 492/83 by Mr Yves Galland (L — F)


(7 June 1983)

Subject: Joint action on oil policy

After its last meeting on 21 and 22 March 1983 the European Council assessed the reduction in oil prices as a positive contribution toward redressing the world economy provided this trend and its repercussions could be controlled. It also stated that measures should be taken to prevent this trend endangering the successful continuation of efforts to encourage energy saving and exploit other energy sources.

Does the Commission intend to propose a joint action programme for the Ten? If so, what measures does it envisage?

Answer given by Mr Davignon on behalf of the Commission

(2 September 1983)

The Commission has recently transmitted to the Council a proposal for a medium-term programme of energy and energy research in the Community (}). The underlying aim of this programme is to ensure adequate progress towards the Community's long-term objectives, which is unlikely to be secured on the basis of current policies (2), thereby turning to advantage the breathing space offered by the current oil market situation.


The proposed programme of action focuses on three areas: (a) more rational energy use: here the Commission

envisages an extension of its existing proposal providing for interest-rate subsidies on Community loans for certain categories of investment; calls for early agreement on the medium-term financing framework for the Community's energy demonstration programmes; and envisages the evaluation and application of measures to achieve greater penetration of electricity produced from solid fuels and nuclear and better integration of the electricity networks in the Community;

(b) the prospection of Community energy resources: the Commission envisages a Community programme of hydrocarbon prospection activity within the Community to investigate new areas of possible natural gas and oil potential; an extension of the existing Community programme of support for hydrocarbon technology projects; and the financing of some uranium exploration activity to examine areas already identified as having potential, with a view to triggering other national and private efforts;

(c) a more balanced development of Community supplies: the Commission is proposing a comprehensive range of actions in the field of solid fuels, directed in particular at technological development, the environment, stocks, modernization of the Community coal industry and the expansion of lignite and peat capacity, in addition to its proposals on investment in rational energy use which are heavily focused on solid fuel use.

This comprehensive approach is outlined in more detail in a separate communication to the Council (3). In the nuclear sector the Commission underlines the need for renewed attention to some of the major public concerns, notably about safety and nuclear waste. It is proposing, inter alia, Community pilot schemes on the storage of radioactive waste. In the gas sector the Commission argues for measures to promote greater integration of the Community's gas system so as to provide enhanced flexibility and security at least cost, and it is considering the case for the creation of strategic natural gas (and also oil) stocks. Finally, the Commission is examining further the need for Community support in the financing of some commercial-scale alternative energy projects.

A programme of this kind could cost 1 500 million to 2 000 million ECU a year at its peak in 1986 or 1987 but would be expected to tail off thereafter. The size and pattern of expenditure have led the Commission to examine alternative sources of finance to the normal budgetary sources and, specifically, to consider the pros and cons of a

special hypothecated tax based on non-industrial energy consumption. The arguments are set out in its communication to the Council proposing the pluriannual programme.

(•) Energy and Energy Research in the Community: A Five Year Programme of Action and its Financing COM(83)315 final, 15 June 1983.

(2) The uncertainties in this respect are outlined in the Commission's separate communication to the Council 'Community Energy Strategy: Progress and Guidelines for Future Action' COM(83) 305 final, 2 June 1983.

(3) Proposals for a Balanced Solid Fuels Policy, COM(83) 309 final.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 521/83 by Mrs Emma Bonino (CDI — I)


(9 June 1983)

Subject: Bureaucratic formalities applying to articles for the use of the blind

In the European Community, a blind person who orders a braille clock from a non-EEC firm may be forced to spend more money on completing the customs formalities than on the article itself (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2783/79)0. The International Geneva Convention, ratified by the EEC, stipulates that articles for the use of the blind are to be conveyed free of charge by post throughout the world and not subjected to customs formalities.

Does the Commission not believe that, in compliance with the International Geneva Convention, articles for the use of the blind should not have to pass through customs, but be checked by the postal authorities alone? Does it seriously believe that a white stick or a braillewriter can be unlawfully misused for purposes other than the legitimate needs of the blind?

Does the Commission not consider it ridiculous that, to obtain a pound of braille paper, the blind person should be subjected to such tortuous formalities?

Does it not consider it absurd that an organization which aims to provide an additional service, such as an airport which purchases a modern wheelchair, should be heavily penalized? Does it not agree that unnecessary bureaucratic and customs formalities of this kind will discourage donations from both individuals and organizations?

(i) OJ No L 318, 13. 12. 1979, p. 27.



(29 August 1983)

All goods imported into the Community must be imported in accordance with current customs provisions, whatever the status of the importer. Such customs provisions may vary in their flexibility depending on the situation and on the objectives pursued.

In the case of articles specially designed for the educational, scientific or cultural advancement of blind persons, Regulation (EEC) No 1028/79 (!) provides that such articles may be imported free of customs duties. Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2783/79(2) provides that, in order to obtain duty-free admission, the person concerned need only submit an application providing evidence of his entitlement to duty-free admission.

Following the Council's adoption of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty(3), Articles 70 to 78 of which replace Regulation (EEC) No 1028/79, the Commission is preparing to replace Regulation (EEC) No 2783/79 by a new Regulation in which it will be provided that the application to be submitted by blind persons in order to obtain duty-free admission may be made in simplified form (possibly orally).

The Commission does not understand which international Geneva convention, ratified by the EEC, the Honourable Member is referring to. As far as consignments conveyed free of charge by the postal services are concerned, it is aware only of the provisions of the Universal Postal Convention concluded in Vienna in 1964 and signed by all the Member States of the Community. Article 17 of the Convention providing for free postage for literature and impressions in relief for the blind. However, no exemption from customs formalities is provided for in the field covered by the Convention.

As regards more particularly the customs control of consignments sent to blind persons, the Commission considers that, in practice, giving the postal authorities sole responsibilty for checking such consignments would not make matters any easier, since postal consignments from other countries are dealt with upon arrival by postal and customs officials simultaneously. In any case, the postal authorities have no power to decide on the customs treatment to be applied to postal consignments.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that articles such as a white stick or a braillewriter are not likely to be used for purposes other than the legitimate needs of the blind. In the case of other articles such as cassette players, records, etc., it is obviously not always so easy to determine whether they are specially designed for

the eductional, scientific or cultural advancement of blind persons. For this reason a minimum of customs formalities remains essential when such articles are imported, irrespective of whether they are purchased or received as gifts.

With regard to the example of the wheelchair purchased by an airport, which the Commission assumes the Honourable Member regrets cannot be imported free of customs duties, the Commission can only point out that, in the case of articles for the use of handicapped persons, the Community is already very liberal in its application of the Florence Agreement and the Protocol to it known as the Nairobi Protocol (see Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1028/79).

Since 1 January 1980, when that Regulation entered into force, the Community protection clause has not been applied in respect of any of the articles covered by the Regulation.

Moreover, the Honourable Member will be aware that the Community is the only one among a number of major trading partners to apply the substance of the Nairobi Protocol without any restrictions vis-d-vis any other country. It is a fact that the Nairobi Protocol clearly stipulates that duty-free admission for the articles in question may be granted only to approved institutions or organizations concerned with handicapped persons. The Community abides by this restriction.

(i) OJ No L 134, 31.5. 1979, p. 8. (2) OJ No L 318, 31. 12. 1979, p. 27. (3) OJ No L 105, 23. 4. 1983, p. 1.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 568/83 by Mrs Winifred Ewing (EDP — GB)

to the Foreign Ministers of the 10 Member States of the European Community meeting in political cooperation

(21 June 1983)

Subject: Violation of human rights in Cuba

Could the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation bring to the attention of the Non-aligned Group the flagrant violation of human rights in Cuba and demand of the authorities in Cuba that the five citizens sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to establish a free trade union be released?

Could the President-in-Office also demand of the Cuban authorities that they release immediately the lawyers who were also imprisoned for exercising their professional responsibilities in defending these people?

No C 296/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 11.83

Answer

(30 September 1983)

The Ten are aware of reports concerning death sentences, subsequently commuted to long-term imprisonment, passed on five Cuban citizens for their involvement in independent trade union activities, but have been unable to establish the facts of the matter.

Should further evidence become available the Ten will consider what further action they might take.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 574/83 by Mr Thomas von der Vring (S — D)


(22 June 1983)

Subject: Excessive work involved in statistical surveys carried out by the Community

In 1982 a clothing firm in Oldenburg (Lower Saxony) with a staff of 200 was required to complete a questionnaire sent by the Lower Saxony State Administration in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1596/81(0 relating to the organization of a survey of labour costs. This unquestionably involved an excessive amount of work for the company, since it was necessary for the head of the sales department and a senior personnel clerk to work for 73 hours and 52 hours respectively, that is to say a total of 16 man days, in order to reply to the 36 questions (survey of labour costs in the services sector in 1981). The staff costs involved totalled DM 4 073. This task therefore put the sales department, with its staff of four-and-a-half, to considerable trouble and inconvenience.

Can the Commission reply to the following: 1. Before submitting such proposals for

Regulations does the Commission take account of the practical inconvenience to the companies concerned in providing answers to certain questions?

2. Was the volume of information required by the lower Saxony State Administration useful for the purpose of Community statistics and was it reasonable to expect such information to be supplied?

3. Was the survey of a comprehensive nature or was it carried out by sampling within the meaning of Article 2 of the Regulation?

4. In the case of sampling, should the firms concerned not receive compensation for any exceptional inconvenience caused to them?

5. To what extent does the Commission consider that it would be possible to reduce the inconvenience caused by Community statistical

surveys, in particular for medium-sized undertakings?

6. Is the Commission prepared to answer these important questions within the prescribed period of one month?

O OJNoL159, 17.6. 1981, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Burke on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 1983)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that statistical surveys for Community puposes are organized under the Statistical Programme of the European Communities, which is examined and updated at regular intervals in agreement with the national statistical offices. The technical details of the surveys are determined by working parties set up by the Statistical Office of the European Communities, and the relevant national authorities (and, on labour matters, the employers' and employees' organizations) are represented on these working parties. The question of what effort the reporting units can reasonably be expected to make is a key factor both in the decisions taken in the above context and in the adoption by the Council of any special legal provisions that are required.

On of the basic problems for the Commission, and no doubt also for the relevant authorities in the Member States, is the steady increase in the statistical requirements which it has to meet, coupled with growing emphasis on the need to protect the reporting units from the burdens imposed by statistical surveys.

The Commission would reply as follows to the Honourable Member's individual questions. 1. Yes. 2. 3 and 4. On these questions, which relate

specifically to the Community labour cost survey, it should be pointed out that the Member States are responsible for carrying out the survey, using a Community questionnaire which is adjusted to national requirements and sent to the firms included in the random sample. It should also be pointed out that the survey is carried out only at intervals of several years. In so far as the volume of information required by the Lower Saxony State Administration relates to questions contained in the Community model of the questionnaire, such information is necessary for the purposes of Community statistics and, in view of what has been said above, it is reasonable to expect it to be supplied. Member States receive a lump sum from Community funds towards the cost of carrying out the survey. The manner in which


these monies are applied is totally at the discretion of the individual Member State, the Community having no say in its use.

5. The Commission always endeavours to keep to a minimum the inconvenience caused to reporting units in the Member States. On this point, it would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Wirtten Question No 2150/82 by Mr WedekindO-

6. The Commission has made every effort to reply as quickly as possible.

(0 OJ No C 141, 30. 5. 1983, p. 11.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 580/83 by Mr Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (CDI — B)


(22 June 1983)

Subject: Aid to Friesland from the European Regional and Social Funds and the European Investment Bank

Can the Commission indicate the amount of aid received by the Netherlands from the Regional and Social Funds over the last two years and what proportion of it went to Friesland? Can it also indicate what projects in the Netherlands received EIB assistance and how many of them were situated in Friesland?

Answer given by Mr Giolitti on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 1983)

In the 1981 and 1982 financial years the Commission granted Regional Fund aid totalling Fl 19,291 million to the province of Friesland. The assistance went towards two industrial investment projects and one infrastructure investment project. Regional Fund aid to the whole of the Netherlands amounted to Fl 34,695 million in 1981 and Fl 46,824 million in 1982.

It is not possible to isolate the aid granted by the Social Fund for vocational training operations in the province of Friesland. For the whole of the North Netherlands region, comprising the provinces of Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe, the amounts granted under the 'regions' measure in the last two years were Fl 4,9 million in 1981 and Fl 5,7 million in 1982. These figures relate only to operations assisted under the 'regions' measure; other operations assisted by the Social Fund have been the subject of numerous global decisions by the Commission. Social Fund aid to the whole of the

Netherlands amounted to Fl 34,003 million in 1981 and Fl 42,242 million in 1982.

In 1981 and 1982 the European Investment Bank did not finance any projects in Friesland.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 601/83 by Mr Dieter Rogalla (S — D)


(22 June 1983)

Subject: Coordination of Community consumer protection policy in the tourism field

1. Does the Commission consider that the money spent by the populations of the Member States on tourism and holidays plays a significant part in the economies of the Member States?

2. What action has the Commission taken hitherto to help coordinate the Member States' economic policies in this field, in particular through the coordination of holiday periods between the individual Member States?

3. Is the Commission prepared to make an even greater effort than in the past to make the Member States aware of the economic advantages of staggered holiday periods, particularly from the point of view of the lower-income groups and, in accordance with Article 105 of the EEC Treaty, to take steps henceforth to restrain or eradicate the fluctuations in exchange rates observed during holiday periods, both between Member States' currencies and between the latter and the dollar.


(8 September 1983)

1. In its communication on the initial guidelines for a Community policy on tourism, submitted to the Council and Parliament in July 1982, the Commission states that tourism is an important economic activity in the spirit of Article 2 of the EEC Treaty. It provides jobs for 4 million people in the Community and its indirect effect on employment is considerably greater. It contributes to balance of payments stability between the northern European countries and those of the south and assists in the development of the poorest regions of the Community. Special attention should therefore be paid to promoting its harmonization development throughout the Community.

2. One of the aims of the communication is to identify the areas in which a coordination of


Community activities would be likely to promote the harmonious development of tourism in the Community. The Commission considers the staggering of holidays to be such an area and, moreover, a question which deserves high priority. In its communication it undertakes to study the pattern of school and industrial holidays in the Member States and consider what can be done to extend the tourist season.

3. In this connection, the Commission will pay special attention to social tourism. In its communication it states that the growth of tourism in recent years should not be allowed to hide the fact that large sections of society still have insufficient income to benefit from it. Special attention should therefore be paid to certain sections of society such as young workers and pensioners, who would, if encouraged, take holidays during the low season. They are the prime targets for the staggering of the tourist season, which will enable better use to be made of investment in tourism.

As for the effect of fluctuations in exchange rates, the European Monetary System, by limiting changes in the rates of the currencies of the Member States which are effectively and fully participating in the exchange rate mechanism set up by this system, is making a substantial and lasting contribution to stabilizing the value of the currencies involved. The dollar, on the other hand, is floating against the European monetary system and its rate often changes erratically or excessively in relation to the European currencies; however, tourism spending is hardly a contributing factor. The Commission has already been trying for some time to work out consultation procedures between Europe and the US authorities to restrict the fluctuations of the dollar.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 620/83 by Mr Ernest Glinne (S — B)


(27 June 1983)

Subject: Declaration by the Argentine military junta concerning the 'desaparecidos'

On Thursday, 28 April this year, at the time when the 'Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo' were commemorating the sixth anniversary of the beginning of their 'Thursday walk', the Argentine military dictatorship published a document trying to give institutional form to what it hoped would be the 'final solution' as regards the 30 000 detainees who have disappeared.

In this way, the military junta hopes to avoid an inquiry into the fate of the 'desaparecidos' and other crimes committed under its regime.

Can the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation answer the following questions: 1. Has this document, published under the title

'Final document on the war against subversion and terrorism', been officially delivered to them?

2. If so, what has been their reaction? 3. Have they received guarantees that:

— the 'desaparecidos' will return alive; — the children who have been abducted or who

have been born in captivity will be returned to their own families; and that

— all political prisoners will be released immediately?

Answer

(20 September 1983)

The Ten have not officially received the 'Final document on the war against subversion and terrorism' issued by the Argentine military junta on 28 April 1983, concerning the fate of disappeared persons. Nevertheless, they have declared on 6 May 1983 that this document cannot be regarded as a satisfactory answer to the constant demands for throwing light on the fate of the missing people. The Ten reiterated their demands for clarification on 15 May and again on 28 June. To date, no satisfactory response or any assurances have been received.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 639/83 by Mrs Sylvie Le Roux (COM — F)


(1 July 1983)

Subject: Fixing of farm prices

On Thursday, 19 May, during a plenary sitting of the European Parliament, I proposed that the farm prices for the 1983-84 marketing year established by the Council on 17 May, be fixed retroactively as of 1 April 1983, Mr Dalsager replied that it was not technically feasible to make such measures retroactive.


1. Can the Commission indicate the dates of Council Decisions and the dates of implementation of farm prices for each new marketing year since 1975?

2. Is the Commission prepared to offset the losses to farmers arising from the delay in fixing prices, either by making the new prices apply retroactively or by specific compensatory measures?

2. The Commisslion believes that the prices adopted by the Council for the 1983/84 marketing year, represent a fair and reasonable set of decisions, taking into account all the factors involved, including the situation of the agricultural markets, the development of agricultural incomes and the general economic climate. From the technical point of view it would be difficult or even impossible to implement measures for the retroactivity of the common agricultural prices, levies and restitutions.


(1 September 1983)

1. The dates on which the Council decided the common prices were: 13 February 1975 for the 1975/76 marketing year; 6 March 1976 for the 1976/77 marketing year;

25 April 1977 for the 1977/78 marketing year; 12 May 1978 for the 1978/79 marketing year; 22 June 1979 for the 1979/80 marketing year; 30 May 1980 for the 1980/81 marketing year; 2 April 1981 for the 1981/82 marketing year;

18 May 1982 for the 1982/83 marketing year; 19 May 1983 for the 1983/84 marketing year.

The common prices are applied from the beginning of the marketing year for each product.

According to the basic Council Regulations, the marketing years for the principal products are expected to commence on 1 April (milk products), the first Monday in April (beef, sheepmeat), 1 July (sugar), 1 September (rice), 1 August (cereals), 1 November (pigmeat, olive oil), 16 December (wine) unless the Council decides otherwise. It is therefore desirable for the Council to adopt its price decisions before 1 April each year. However, in those years when the price decisions were delayed, the Council extended the preceding marketing years for the products affected, that is, principally milk products, beef, sheepmeat.

Consequently the commencement of the new marketing years, and the application of the new prices, for some products was delayed in certain years. For example, the marketing years for milk commenced on: 3 March 1975

15 March 1976 1 May 1977

22 May 1978 2 July 1979 1 June 1980 6 April 1981

20 May 1982 23 May 1983

for the for the for the for the for the for the for the for the for the

1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84

marketing year; marketing year; marketing year; marketing year; marketing year; marketing year; marketing year; marketing year; marketing year.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 641/83 by Mr Horst Langes and Mr Egon Klepsch (PPE — D)


(1 July 1983)

Subject: Distortions of competition, as exemplified in the footwear industry

In recent months, the European Parliament has frequently and repeatedly drawn attention to the increasing distortions of competition in transfrontier trade.

The regulations, decrees and even laws issued by France are particularly aggravating and petty in this context in that they severely restrict free trade as provided for in the Rome Treaties.

Our questions to the Commission relate, by way of example, to exports of German footwear to France. 1. Is the Commission aware that France is the sole

country in the Community to insist that goods in transit to France must be covered by a national French insurance policy and that the premiums are four times higher than the equivalent in other countries?

2. What view does the Commission take of a 1936 law relating to agriculture which stipulates that the material (e.g. calf, cow, etc) from which the shoe was manufactured must be specified in every case?

3. Is the Commission aware that this French law is in fact applied only in respect of exported goods?

4. What view does the Commission take of the French Government's regulation under which vehicles with German number plates may only buy but not sell goods in France?

5. What view does the Commission take of the French Government's measure imposing a levy on any imported article not described in detail in French? Example: a levy of FF 10 is imposed on a pair of shoes packed in a box marked 'black' instead of 'noir'.


6. What does the Commission intend to do about the fact that the nationalized banks have restricted import credits for French traders to such an extent that they are scarcely in a position any longer to purchase in the other countries in the Community?

7. Non-French traders are frequently unaware of the host of French laws, decrees and regulations. Even the Franco-German Chamber of Commerce in Paris is at present unable, to provide a precise summary of current regulations and laws. Thus, any trader wishing to export his goods to France is in a difficult situation. Where can he acquire the necessary information? What can the Commission do in this respect?


(8 September 1983)

1. The Commission is enquiring into the points raised by the Honourable Members.

2. The scope of the French law of 25 June 1936 on the definition and protection of leather was specified by Decree No 55-76 of 14 January 1955 on trade in leather and imitation leather products.

This Decree which applies to trade in leather and tanned animal hides and skins as well as to trade in manufactured products resembling leather, forbids the importation, possession with a view to resale, offering for sale, or sale as leather of any products not obtained solely from animal hides or skins through tanning or by an impregnation process which preserves the natural shape of the skin fibres.

It provides that all invoices or delivery notes relating to the sale of these products must bear the appropriate trade description.

If the raw material is leather, the description must include, in addition to the word 'leather', an indication of the animal species and of the tanning method used. In the case of finished products one or more parts of which, normally made of leather, are in fact made from other raw materials likely to be mistaken for leather, the trade description must include indication of the raw material used.

The Commission does at first sight regard these provisions as excessive. It is, however, prepared to scrutinize carefully any problems that may arise, provided that a full explanation is given showing that the requirements of the French regulations constitute a barrier to trade.

3. Article 6 of the abovementioned Decree provides that 'goods covered by this Decree and intended for export may be sold under the descriptions permitted by law in the countries of destination'.

From a strictly legal point of view, therefore, the French regulations in this field are not binding on exported goods.

Furthermore, the Commission cannot see what the French authorities could gain by applying this regulation to exported goods alone.

4. The practice criticized by the Honourable Members complies with paragraph 1 (a) (bb) of Article 4 of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another^).

This provides that no private vehicle shall be exempt from tax on import if it is used for industrial and/or commercial transport of goods.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Members that, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the abovementioned Directive, it will report every two years, after consulting the Member States, to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of that Directive.

Where necessary, the Commission will propose Community measures aimed at establishing a uniform system in all Member States.

5. Article 1 of French law No 75-1349 of 31 December 1975 provides that 'the use of French is mandatory for purposes of the description, supply, presentation, written or spoken advertising material, instructions for use, scope and terms in respect of goods and services'.

This general requirement in the interests of consumer protection, an aim fostered by the Commission, therefore relates specifically to labelling, packaging and instructions for use.

The Commission nevertheless considers that this objective should not be achieved through measures which give rise to barriers to trade between Member States, unless such measures are absolutely necessary in order to produce the desired results.

Hence checks on compliance with the requirement to draft such material in French should be carried out only at the marketing stage, i.e. when the goods are offered for sale to the ultimate consumer, and not at the time of customs clearance.


Similarly, the obligation to draft material in the language of the importing country is unacceptable when it is applied to expressions which are used in common parlance and can therefore be understood by consumers.

6. In France, import credit, like credit for the financing of domestic commercial transactions, is subject to a credit management system. Control of bank lending operations is one factor in the French Government's economic policy to which the Commission paid particular attention when it recently granted a Community loan of 4 000 million ECU to the French Republic. The French authorities have on several occasions been obliged to tighten up the credit management system in order to achieve their objectives in this field. This may well have contributed to the limitation, mentioned by the Honourable Members, of the amount of import credit granted by French banks. It should be said that the statistics published by the French National Credit Council and the Bank of France give no breakdown as between import credit and other forms of credit.

The decision whether to grant credit to a French firm for the purpose of financing an import transaction is a commercial decision which is entirely the responsibility of the bank to which the request is made. The bank takes account both of the specific criteria relating to its client and of the overall commercial policy objectives it has laid down. It may well be that the application of these criteria has led to refusals in a number of specific cases of which the Honourable Members have been informed.

The Commission has no knowledge of specific instances in which a French bank has refused a request for import credit. Nor, in view of the foregoing, does the Commission have any information in the light of which it could consider taking steps to intervene in decisions which are the province of the French banks.

7. Importers or exporters wishing to obtain the customs information they need in order to carry out their activities may apply either to the Direction Generate des Douanes et Droits Indirects (Central Customs Authority; in writing to the Bureau de {'Information et Relations Publiques, 8 rue de la Tour des Dames, 75436 Paris, Cedex 09 or in person to the Centre de Renseignments des Douanes, 182 rue Ste. Honore, 75056 Paris) or to the Direction Regionale des Douanes (Regional Customs Authority) which is closest to their firm's head office.

(1) OJ No L 105, 23. 4. 1983, p. 59.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 653/83 by Mr Patrick Lalor (DEP — IRL)


(1 July 1983)

Subject: EEC financial support for projects relating to the protection of the environment

Further to the Commission's answer to my Written Question No 2310/82 (!) concerning EEC aid for projects relating to the protection of the environment which failed to give the specific information I required, namely the details of the successful applications, will the Commission now provide this information as originally requested?

Furthermore, will the Commission make clear in its answer the level of aid provided to each Member State, the number of applicants from each Member State, whether successful or unsuccessful and the number of jobs which the Commission hopes these projects will create?

(!) OJ No C 141, 30. 5. 1983, p. 21.


(28 September 1983)

In view of the length of its answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 658/83 by Mr Horst Seefeld (S — D)


(4 July 1983)

Subject: Road traffic to and from Greece

On 24 April 1981, the Commission stated, in answer to my Written Question No 2217/80(0, that it was taking steps to ensure 'that Greece implements the provisions of the Directive so that, as far as vehicles based in the other Member States are concerned, checks on green cards at the Greek frontier can be abolished at the earliest opportunity'.

Since tourists travelling to Greece by car are still required to carry a green card or to take out expensive additional third party insurance at the border, can the Commission indicate:


1. What measures it has taken to date to ensure that the green card check at the Greek border is abolished?

2. What factors have prevented these controls from being abolished to date?

3. When their removal can be expected?

(1) OJ No C 134, 4. 6. 1981, p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Tugendhat on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1983)

As the Commission explained in its answer to Written Question No 2217/80 by the Honourable Member, checks on green insurance cards at the Greek frontier can be abolished only when civil liability in respect of vehicles registered in Greece has been extended to the territories of the other Member States and when the Greek National Motor Insurers' Bureau has signed the Supplementary Agreement between national bureaux of 12 December 1973.

The first condition was met with Presidential Decree No 1019 of 4 September 1981. As to the second condition, the Greek National Motor Insurers' Bureau has not as yet seen fit to sign the Supplementary Agreement of 12 December 1973 on account of the difficulties stemming from the fact that the legal basis necessary for the operation and financing of the Bureau does not yet exist.

The Commission has repeatedly reminded the competent Greek departments and representatives of the Greek Bureau of the need to sign the Supplementary Agreement in order to comply with the requirement laid down in Council Directive 72/166/EEC (0, which has been binding on Greece since 1 January 1981.

(1) OJ No L 103, 2. 5. 1972.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 668/83 by Mr Willem Albers (S — NL)


(4 July 1983)

Subject: Distortion of competition in respect of seaports as a result of government investment subsidies

1. Having reached the conclusion that there is no need for a specific Community seaport policy, does the Commission have any information concerning investment in seaport facilities within the European Community?

2. Is any information available on the way in which investments affect the calculation of harbour dues?

3. Once it has been established that there is no uniform procedure for calculating investment costs for the purpose of fixing harbour dues, is the Commission not obliged, pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty to investigate possible distortions of competition between the Member States?


(9 September 1983)

1. The Commission has not collected information on seaport investments in a systematic manner since December 1980.

2. Previous work by the Port Working Group indicated that there was little relation between investments, subsidies for such investments and port tariffs although some ports considered that more work should be done in this area.

3. Undoubtedly there is no standard practice in Community ports as far as the means of calculating investment charges as a proportion of port charges is concerned. In the Commission's view Article 85 of the EEC Treaty is not relevant as there is no evidence of concerted practice — each port follows its own practice; and up until now there has been no need to apply Article 86 as there has been no evidence of an abuse of a dominant position.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 678/83 by Lord O'Hagan (ED — GB)


(4 July 1983)

Subject: Harmonization of VAT

It is widely alleged that the EEC will force Britain to harmonize the rate of VAT on baby clothes and food with those obtaining in other Member States. To what extent is this true?


(9 September 1983)

Under Article 28 (2) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (i), the Council is to review reduced rates of VAT and exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage every five years on the

3. 11.83. Official Journal of the European Communities No C 296/17

basis of a report from the Commission and, where appropriate, is to adopt the measures required to ensure their progressive abolition, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission.

The Commission submitted its first five-yearly report to the Council on 17 January 1983 (2). The report, which covers all the temporary exemptions provided for by Article 28, has been discussed by the Council ad hoc working party and is currently being examined in meetings between the Commission departments and Member States' administrations. The Commission will lay before the Council any proposals it deems necessary in connection with those temporary exemptions.

(») Direcitve 77/388/EEC; OJ No L 145, 13. 6. 1977. (2) COM(82) 885 final.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 698/83 by Mr Anthony Simpson (ED — GB)


(14 July 1983)

Subject: VAT on medical and veterinary services

Which Member States, if any, levy VAT (a) on medical services and (b) on veterinary services and at what rate?

If any Member State levies VAT on part only of medical and/or veterinary services, please specify in general terms what part of such services are subject to VAT and at what rate.


(1 September 1983)

Article 13 A 1 (c) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on value added taxO states that Member States shall exempt 'the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned'.

Consequently, these service are exempt in all the Member States.

Services supplied by veterinary surgeons are in principle taxed. However, Article 28 (3) (b) of the Directive, taken together with its Annex F, point 9, authorizes Member States which previously did so to continue to exempt the treatment of animals by veterinary surgeons for a transitional period, initially set at five years.

Pursuant to these provisions, Belgium, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands exempt the supply of veterinary services. But value added tax is charged on such services at the rate of 22 % in Denmark, 14 % in the Federal Republic of Germany, 18,60% in France, 5% in Luxembourg and 15% in the United Kingdom.

The Commission knows of no cases where such services are taxed or exempted only in part.

(!) OJ No L 145, 13. 6. 1977.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 699/83 by Mr Anthony Simpson (ED — GB)


(14 July 1983)

Subject: Intra-Community border controls

Non-Belgian Community citizens who are resident in Belgium are issued by the Belgian authorities with a residence permit (Carte de sejour de Resortissant d'un Etai Membre de la CEE). The border control officers of the Federal Republic of Germany will not accept this document as proof of identy for such citizens who wish to enter the Federal Republic. They require the production of either a national passport or of a German residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis) which can be issued at the frontier for a fee.

Does not the Commission agree that a residence permit issued by a Member State to its residents who are citizens of another Member State should be valid for the purpose of crossing all intra-Community borders? Will the Commission take steps to rectify this situation as part of its fight to reduce border controls, if necessary by raising the matter in the Council of Ministers?



(2 September 1983)

The rules on freedom of movement laid down in Community law, in particular Directives 68/360/EECO and 73/148/EEC(2), by virtue of the range of persons they cover, confer on nationals of a Member State the right to enter the territory of another Member State on production of a valid travel document. In this context, valid travel document means a passport or identiy card. A residence permit for a Member State is not a travel document. Under Article 4 of the two abovementioned Directives, the document referred to by the Honourable Member {Carte de sejour de Ressortissant d'un Etat membre de la CEE) serves only as proof of the right of residence in Belgium. Under the law as it now stands, therefore, a document issued as proof of the right of residence in a Member State is not a valid travel document for the purposes of entering another Member State.

The Commission does not under present circumstances see any possibility of changing this legal position. However, it would point out that it strongly advocates the abolition of other restrictions on the freedom of movement of individuals within the Community and, on 9 July 1982, laid before the Council a draft resolution on the easing of checks on individuals at the Community's internal frontiers (3). Parliament endorsed this proposal in principle on 9 June 1983.

(0 Council Directive of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community of workers of Member States and their families, OJ No L 257, 19. 10. 1968.

(2) Council Directive of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provisions of services, OJ No L 172, 28. 6. 1973.

(3) OJNoC197, 31.7. 1982.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 715/83 by Mr Rudolf Wedekind (PPE — D)


(14 July 1983)

Subject: Commission proposal for a VAT harmonization Directive

The aim of the 12th VAT harmonization Directive is to put an end to the practice of deducting tax previously charged in respect of cars used for

commercial purposes, business trips and the entertainment of visiting businessman. Since these commercial input factors would show a considerable increase (in terms of the VAT percentage) compared with other commercial inputs, the effect in practice may be one of substitution. Substitution practices are known to be connected with inefficiency, i.e. with a fall in production, which leads to an increase in unemployment. The main victims here would be the motor vehicle industry and its suppliers, hotels and catering houses, transport firms and tourist companies. — What are the Commission's estimates in figures

as regards the negative effects on production and the resultant unemployment?

— What would be the corresponding increase in tax revenue?

— What are the Commission's reasons for choosing harmonization on the basis of 'turnover tax'?


(2 September 1983)

The Commission takes the view that ending the deductibility of VAT charged on firms' expenditure on the use of passenger cars on business trips and on entertainment will have only a minimal impact on their operating costs. Either such expenditure has already been cut to what is strictly necessary, resulting in a correspondingly reduced VAT burden, or it is incurred rather lavishly, in which case certain firms will be induced to limit their corresponding inputs and so improve their profitability.

The Commission does not consider that an inducement of this kind is likely to cause a reduction in car production or tourism. Furthermore, such an effect could well be seen as evidence that this expenditure is not always strictly incurred for business reasons.

The Commission cannot provide figures for a fall in production and an increase in unemployment that would be caused by the adoption of the proposal for a 12th Directive (1), since this is merely an assertion based on a hypothesis which is neither verifiable nor quantifiable.

The proposal for a 12th Directive is not designed to raise additional tax revenue for the Member States. Furthermore, the Commission does not have at its disposal sufficiently detailed statistics that would enable it to make reliable assessments of this aspect of the matter.

It should also not be forgotten that the VAT amounts which would no longer be deductible would reduce the base for the taxation of profits.


While exceptions to the normal deductibility rule exist in most Member States, where they were generally introduced at the same time as VAT itself, their scope varies widely; such a variety of situations is difficult to justify under the common VAT system and creates problems to which the Commission has referred in the explanatory memorandum to its proposal. This proposal does no more than meet the obligation imposed by the Council in Article 17 (6) of the sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977 (2) by attempting to introduce a measure of consistency into the exceptions to the arrangements for deducting VAT.

0 OJNoC37, 10.2.1983. (2) OJ No L 145, 13. 6. 1977.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 722/83 by Mr Luc Beyer de Ryke (L — B)

to the Council of the European Communities

(14 July 1983)

Subject: Poland — sentencing of trade unionist Edmund Baluka

Reports have appeared in the press concerning the ten-year prison sentence passed on the Polish trade unionist and prominent 'Solidarity' figure, Edmund Baluka, for plotting against the State.

Can the Council say what steps it has taken in support of Edmund Baluka and other persons detained in Poland for similar reasons in violation of the Helsinki agreements guaranteeing the fundamental liberties of the citizens of the signatory countries and the right to form trade unions and the right of association in particular?

Answer (*)

(30 September 1983)

As has been stated on a number of occasions, the Ten attach particular importance to compliance with the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act concerning human rights in the countries which signed the Act. They are following the case of Mr Baluka very closely in the light of the measures recently taken by the Polish Government, and they

still have the possibility of intervening on his behalf should that be deemed appropriate.

(•) This answer has been provided by the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation, within whose province the question came.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 729/83 by Mr Pol Marck (PPE — B)


(14 July 1983)

Subject: Dumping of Spanish eggs on the export market

Spain is reported to have formulated a programme with ANSA for exporting eggs to the Community Member States. Is the Commission aware that the export price has been set well below the Spanish market price at a loss of up to 40 pesetas per dozen eggs?

In view of this, what measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent such dumping?


(1 September 1983)

The Commission is kept informed of the crisis affecting the world market in eggs and knows that Spain has encountered difficulties which have caused it to take national measures.

As regards low-priced offers at the Community frontier, the Commission wishes to repeat what it said in its answer to Written Question No 1203/82 (!) by the Honourable Member, namely that it makes full use of the instruments placed at its disposal, in particular sluice-gate prices and import levies.

(1) OJ No C 339, 27. 12. 1982.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 749/83 by Mr Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (CDI — B)


(16 July 1983)

Subject: Conduct of Community countries during the vote on the Resolution on Cyprus in the UN Assembly on 13 May 1983

On 13 May 1983 a Resolution on Cyprus was adopted in the UN Assembly by an overwhelming


majority. Inter alia, the Resolution deplores the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is still occupied by foreign troops and supports the intention of the Secretary-General, Mr Perez de Cuellar, to intervene personally once again. All of the Community countries abstained with the exception of Greece, France and Ireland, which voted in favour.

How can the Council explain this lack of unity, in particular as there is nothing in the Resolution which conflicts with the principles of the Community?

Answer (*)

(20 September 1983)

The main objective of political cooperation among the Ten is to promote the harmonization of their views, the coordination of their positions, and where it appears possible and desirable, common actions.

However, abstention of several Member States on the said Resolution does not imply a departure from their position stated on many occasions. The efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, under whose auspices the intercommunal talks have been established on a regular basis, as well as his intention to undertake a new initiative in order to bring about a lasting solution of the problem, have been and continue to be supported by the Ten. It is the sincere wish of the Ten that the necessary goodwill will be shown so that progress can be made towards a just and lasting settlement of this grave problem, which will effectively maintain the unity,

territorial integrity and independence of the Republic of Cyprus.

(!) This answer has been provided by the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation, within whose province the question came.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 751/83 by Mr Jens-Peter Bonde (CDI — DK)


(16 July 1983)

Subject: Trend in Member States' aid for the developing countries

Will the Commission provide a survey showing the trend of Member States' so-called aid for the developing countries each year from 1972 to the present, and provide comparable information for Norway and Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Pisani on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1983)

The Honourable Member will find, in the following table, statistics for the development assistance provided by the Member States and also by Norway and Sweden. The figures represent net disbursements expressed in terms of dollars and as a percentage of each country's GNP. They are taken from tables produced by the OECD's Development Assistance Commitee. There are no figures for Greece and only partial statistics for Ireland and Luxembourg.


Net disbursements of official development assistance (ODA)

Member States

Federal Republic of Germany US $ million % GNP

Belgiun US $ million % GNP

Denmark US $ million % GNP

France — Including

OD + OT US $ million % GNP

— Excluding OD + OT US $ million % GNP

Ireland US $ million % GNP

US $ million % GNP

Luxembourg US $ million % GNP

Netherlands US $ million % GNP

United Kingdom US $ million % GNP

US $ million % GNP

Sweden US $ million % GNP

1972

808 0,32

193 0,55

96 0,45

1320 0,67

102 0,09

307 0,67

609 0,38

63 0,43

198 0,48

1973

1 102 0,32

235 0,51

132 0,48

1461 0,57

192 0,14

322 0,54

603 0,34

87 0,43

275 0,56

1974

1435 0,38

271 0,51

168 0,55

1616 0,59

216 0,14

2

436 0,63

717 0,37

131 0,57

402 0,72

1975

1691 0,40

378 0,59

205 0,58

2 093 0,62

182 0,11

3 0,13

604 0,75

863 0,37

184 0,66

566 0,82

1976

1717 0,36

340 0,51

214 0,56

2 146 0,62

8 0,10

226 0,13

728 0,83

885 0,39

218 0,70

608 0,82

1977

1386 0,33

371 0,46

258 0,60

2 267 0,60

198 0,10

5 0,18

908 0,86

1 114 0,45

295 0,83

779 0,99

1978

2 347 0,37

536 0,55

388 0,75

2 705 0,57

377 0,14

1074 0,82

1465 0,46

355 0,90

783 0,90

1979

3 393 0,45

643 0,57

461 0,77

3 449 0,60

273 0,08

1473 0,98

2 157 0,52

429 0,93

988 0,97

1980

3 567 0,44

595 0,50

481 0,74

4 162 0,64

28 0,18

683 0,17

9 0,19

1630 1,03

1852 0,35

486 0,85

962 0,79

1981

3 181 0,47

575 0,59

403 0,73

4 177 0,73

2 592 0,45

31 0,18

666 0,19

12 0,25

1510 1,08

2 195 0,44

467 0,82

916 0,83

1982C)

3 163 0,48

497 0,59

415 0,77

3 991 0,74

2 597 0,48

(820) (0,24)

1473 1,08

1794 0,38

566 1,01

987 1,02

(•) Provisional statistics. ( ) Figures in parantheses represent estimates by the DAC Secretariat.


WRITTEN QUESTION No 761/83 by Mrs Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE — NL)


(16 July 1983)

Subject: Complaint concerning the implementation in the Netherlands of the Directive on 'equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security'

Is the Commission aware that two members of the Dutch Emancipation Council have lodged a complaint concerning the implementation in the Netherlands of the Directive on 'equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security'^)?

As the financial interests of large groups of Dutch women are at stake, is the Commission prepared to examine as quickly as possible whether this complaint is justified?

Is the Commission also willing to submit the results of its investigation to the Parliament's Commitee of Inquiry into the Situation of Women seeing that this committee is preparing a report on this subject?

(i) Directive 79/7/EEC; OJ No L6, 10. 1. 1979, p. 24.

Answer given by Mr Richard on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1983)

The Commission has noted the complaint against the Netherlands Government lodged by Mrs Krijnen and Mrs Van Vaalen and is currently investigating it in the light of Directive No 79/7/EEC.

In due course the Commission will communicate its findings to Parliament's Committee of Inquiry into the Situation of Women.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 764/83 by Mr Gordon Adam (S — GB)


(16 July 1983)

Subject: Control over public finances

The Commission's communication to the European Council (Stuttgart, 17 to 19 June 1983) on the economic and social situation in the Community refers (in section III A to countries which have maintained or regained control over their public finances.

Will the Commission state which category applies to each Member State?

Which Member States are allowing 'built-in stabilizers to operate'?

Which Member States are preventing 'premature automatic contraction in deficits'?

Which Member States are considering 'autonomous, moderate budgetary action'?



(16 July 1983)

Subject: Reduction in interest rates

The Commission's communication to the European Council (Stuttgart, 17 to 19 June 1983) on the economic and social situation in the Community, indicates (in section IIIB) that a 'gradual and credible reduction in interest rates' is a priority for those Member States which have already attained favourable results on prices and the balance of payments.

Will the Commission indicate which Member States are in this category?

What suggestions have the Commission made regarding interest rates to those Member States which have not obtained favourable results on prices and the balance of payments?



(16 July 1983)

Subject: Restructuring of public expenditure

The Commission's communication to the European Council (Stuttgart, 17 to 19 June 1983) on the economic and social situation in the Community, contains the statement (section III A) that 'there must be effective restructuring of public expenditure in favour of measures to promote economic growth'.

Will the Commission state what measures are to be taken by each Member State to implement this proposal?

Joint answer to Written Questions No 764/83, No 765/83 and No 766/83 given by Mr Ortoli

on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1983)

The answer to the points made in Written Question No 764/83 concerning the guidelines contained in


section III-A of the Commission's communication the European Council of 17 to 19 June 1983, on the economic and social situation in the Community (•), are given in the Commission's communication of 1 July 1983 concerning fiscal policy in the Member States in 1984 (2); this document was examined by the Council on 11 July 1983. The text of section III-A clearly indicates that the guidelines concerning 'built-in-stabilizers', 'premature automatic contraction in deficits', and 'autonomous moderate budgetary action' would apply only if the economic recovery was not sufficiently marked.

As to the restructuring of public expenditure mentioned in Written Question No 766/83, the aim pursued by the Commission is to encourage Member States to devote the largest possible volume of budget outlays to projects designed to raise productive capacity and productivity. A report on this matter addressed to the Council on 6 July 1983 — Restructuring public expenditure in favour of productive expenditure (3) — indicates what kind of public expenditure is most suitable in this respect.

As regards the interest rates referred to in Written Question No 765/83, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are obviously among the countries which have already attained favourable results in prices and the balance of payments.

In Member States where the adjustment of the economy has not yet been fully achieved, monetary policy should remain on a cautious or rigorous course which does allow, only to a very limited extent, for reductions in interest rates.

(i) COM(83) 370 final. (2) COM(83) 423 final. (3) SEC(83) 1147 final.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 784/83 by Mr Allan Rogers (S — GB)


(21 July 1983)

Subject: Divorce laws

1. Do Member States' divorce laws vary from country to country?

2. If laws do vary, will the Commission give details of major differences between Member States? 3. Is it permissible under European law that forms of discrimination between the judgment of males or females involved are allowable?


(22 September 1983)

1 and 2. The Commission is aware that differences do exist between the divorce laws of the Member States. As this field does not fall within the Commission's responsibilities, however, it does not possess sufficient information to enable it to provide details of where major differences exist.

3. Existing Community legislation forbidding discrimination between men and women applies only to certain specified areas, for example pay, access to employment and training and certain aspects of social security legislation (*). Divorce law is not covered.

(i) OJ No L 45, 19. 2.1975, p. 19; OJ No L 39, 14. 2. 1976, p. 40; OJ No L 6, 10.1. 1979, p. 24.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 849/83 by Mr Klaus Hansen (S — D)


(1 September 1983)

Subject: Sentences passed on Juris Bumeister and Dainis Lismanis in the Soviet Union

A year ago the Foreign Ministers were asked if they were aware that Juris Bumeister, leader of the Social Democratic Workers Party in Latvia, and his associate Dainis Lismanis had been sentenced to 15 and 10 years' imprisonment respectively, and if they were prepared to intervene with the Soviet authorities on their behalf so that they could depart freely for a country of their choice (Written Question No 319/82, 27 April 1982 (l).

In their answer, the Foreign Ministers stated that they had not yet discussed this case.

J. Bumeister and D. Lismanis are still being detained in Soviet labour camps. 1. Have the Ten meanwhile discussed this case? 2. Can the Foreign Ministers report on the latest

state of efforts to affect the fate of the two dissidents?

3. Are they prepared to press, by exhausting all the means and methods at their disposal — including those relating to the European Security and Cooperation Conference in


Madrid — for the release and departure of J. Bumeister and D. Lismanis?

(!) OJ No C 232, 6. 9. 1982, p. 7.

Answer

(20 September 1983)

Since their last answer related to the case of M. Bumeister and M. Lismanis, the Ten have not discussed the matter. However, the concern of the Ten with regard to the violations of human rights, wherever they might occur, is well known and has been repeatedly demonstrated both on national and Community level.

WRITTEN QUESTION No 854/83 by Mr Giovanni Travaglini (PPE — I)


(1 September 1983)

Subject: European Development Fund

Will the Commission give detailed information explaining the serious delay which has occurred in the utilization of the works, supplies and services sectors of the fourth and fifth EDFs? The statistics published by the Directorate-General for the EDF updated to 31 March 1983 in fact show that on that date only 1 871 million ECU, i.e. 57 % of the funds allocated to the fourth EDF and 371 million of the 4 542 million ECU allocated to the fifth EDF had been taken up.

What steps does the Commission therefore propose to take to eliminate rapidly all the causes of this delay, which has serious repercussions on the very objectives of cooperation between the Community and the less-developed ACP countries?

Answer given by Mr Pisani on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1983)

The figures quoted by the Honourable Member refer to statistics relating to the award of contracts drawn up at 31 March 1983. It should be noted that, although the amount cited for the fourth EDF (1 871 835 000 ECU) does indeed represent the total sum in respect of contracts awarded at the reference

date, the amount cited in connection with the fifth EDF (245 000 000 ECU) is only a partial figure since it refers only to Member State firms. Account should also be taken of the sums in respect of contracts awarded to the ACP States and OCT (108 283 000 ECU) and to third countries (17 602 000 ECU), which brings the total for fifth EDF contracts to 371 759 000 ECU at 31 March 1983.

These figures do not represent overall commitments under the Funds concerned, but only 'secondary' commitments relating to the contracts awarded. In the case of the 'primary' commitments relating to financing decisions taken by the Commission, the situation on the same reference date is as follows:

(a) for the fourth EDF, the total volume of commitments covering all categories of expenditure, including those which do not give rise to contracts (Stabex, microprojects, risk capital operations, etc.) amounts to 3 002 655 000 ECU;

(b) for the fifth EDF, the corresponding figure in respect of commitments is 1 693 398 000 ECU.

Hence, the level of overall commitments resulting from Commission decisions may be considered satisfactory. With regard to the secondary commitments relating to contracts awarded, which necessarily represent a smaller sum since not all primary commitments result in contracts, the Commission would point out that it is not the only one involved in so far as any delays occurring in connection with implementation of the fourth and fifth EDFs are concerned. It is the national authorities of the ACP States which are primarily responsible for the preparation, negotiation and conclusion of contracts (Article 55 of the first Lome Convention and Article 120 of the second Lome Convention). Many of these countries have, moreover, only gradually acquired a sound grasp of EDF procedures.

This being so, the deliberations of the Community and its partners within the Committee set up under Article 108 of the second Lome Convention are aimed precisely at examining whatever practical difficulties arise in the implementation of financial and technical cooperation and preparing suitable measures for improving that implementation. It is expected that these deliberations, together with the steps taken recently by the Commission itself, for example to expedite contract payments, should result shortly in the totally satisfactory implementation of the European Development Funds currently in operation.


WRITTEN QUESTION No 878/83 by Mr Willy Vernimmen (S — B)


(1 September 1983)

Subject: Foreign Ministers Council — Central America

Our NATO ally the USA is interfering widely, particularly in the military and economic spheres, in the internal affairs of a number of Central American countries.

The USA claims that it wants to fight communism, but in fact it is putting itself on the side of regimes which oppress and exploit entire peoples and do not even shrink from committing brutal murders.

As allies of the USA we must make clear to it that we cannot accept an alliance of this type. It is a disgrace to democracy. Instead of military support, economic and humanitarian aid should be given, not to the corrupt regimes but to the peoples of El Salvador, Haiti, Guatemala, etc., themselves.

Can the Council tell me if it has already clearly communicated this point of view, which is generally shared by public opinion in Western Europe, to the United States Government?

Answer (l)

(30 September 1983)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, not all members of the Ten are members of the military alliance referred to in the question. That part of the question which refers to such an alliance falls outside the scope of European political cooperation.

The situation in Central America is giving rise to grave concern to the peoples and the Governments of the Ten, who have repeatedly underlined the importance they attach to social and economic progress, the establishment of democratic conditions of government, the respect of human rights and the avoidance of recourse to violence.

The position of the Ten towards Central America is set out in the communique issued following the European Council meeting at Stuttgart on 17 to 19 June 1983.

Furthermore the Community provides economic and humanitarian aid to countries of Central America through various programmes aiming at the relief of the peoples of those countries.


WRITTEN QUESTION No 879/83 by Mr Willy Vernimmen (S — B)


(1 September 1983)

Subject: Foreign Ministers Council

Thousands of people are still deprived of their freedom in the Soviet Union for their political convictions. Most of them are in psychiatric hospitals, although they are not sick. Their only sickness is that they hold different opinions from those of the regime.

Hundreds of people are still being held on political grounds in Poland as well.

Can the Council tell me if in recent months it has protested to the Soviet Union and the Polish authorities about these states of affairs, which violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Answer (J)

(20 September 1983)

As it is well known, the Ten attach a particular importance to the respect of human rights, and they are carefully following the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Helsinki Final Act. In this respect they condemn all cases of persons who are deprived of their freedom for their political convictions and are subjected to inhuman treatment. As far as political detainees in USSR and Poland are concerned, the Ten have on many occasions made national or collective demarches in favour of specific individuals.




(1 September 1983)

Subject: Situation of A. Sakharov, Soviet scientist

On Saturday, 2 July 1983, Izvestia, the Soviet Government newspaper, published a vehement criticism of the scientist Andrei Sakharov, who is in internal exile in Gorky.


Recent information reaching Europe indicates that the state of health of the famous scientist is extremely precarious.

Without wishing to interfere in the internal affairs of the USSR what information measures have the Ministers been able to take with a view to maintaining contact with Andrei Sakharov, in the context of compliance with the Helsinki Agreements which provide for the free exchange of information between citizens?

Answer

(30 September 1983)

The Ten attach particular importance to the respect of human rights. They are carefully following the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and take whatever steps they consider advisable in specific cases. This, naturally, applies to the case of the academician Dr Sakharov, whose fate the Ten try to follow in spite of the difficulties arising from his removal to Gorky.



(1 September 1983)

Subject: Situation of Belgian journalists in Poland, freedom of information — violation of the Helsinki Agreements

On Friday, 1 July 1983, Henryk Kurta, correspondent of La Libre Belgique, a major French-language newspaper in Belgium, was notified that the pass accrediting him to Warsaw had been suspended.

This follows the refusal to grant Claude De Groulart, a principal reporter on Le Soir, together with other British and French journalists (including the correspondent of La Croix) a visa to cover the visit of Pope Jean Paul II.

It also follows the expulsion of Jean Kestergat, special correspondent for the same daily newspaper La Libre Belgique, before the end of the Pope's visit.

This series of events represents a serious infringement by the Polish authorities of the freedom of information and a striking demonstration of the way in which certain signatory countries of the Helsinki Agreements, which guarantee fundamental freedoms, in particular the freedom of information, treat their application as a mere formality without substance.

These totalitarian reactions affecting two of our principal newspapers constitute outrageous treatment of Belgium.

Have the Ministers responded in any way to the Polish authorities on this matter?

Answer

(30 September 1983)

Given that the journalists mentioned in the question are all Belgian citizens, the Belgian Government has already vigorously protested to the Polish authorities for their refusal to grant entry visas or passes to the aforementioned journalists. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the Ten are firmly attached to the provisions on information of the Helsinki Final Act in which the participating States make it their aim, inter alia, to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information.

european parliament - eur-lex

Documents