<!DOCTYPE CESDOC PUBLIC "-//CES//DTD cesDoc//EN" > <CESDOC VERSION="3.15"><CESHEADER VERSION="2.1"> <FILEDESC> <TITLESTMT> <H.TITLE> This is an artificial example extracted from the machine readable version of the Official Journal of the European Communities, Written Questions (1993), Series C Volume 36 Number 016 Language English </H.TITLE> </TITLESTMT><PUBLICATIONSTMT> <DISTRIBUTOR> Multext project </DISTRIBUTOR><PUBADDRESS> Laboratoire Parole et Langage, CNRS/Université de Provence, 29, avenue Robert Schuman, 13621 Aix-en-Provence cedex 1, France </PUBADDRESS><AVAILABILITY> public </AVAILABILITY><PUBDATE> 1997 </PUBDATE> </PUBLICATIONSTMT><SOURCEDESC> <BIBLSTRUCT> <MONOGR> <H.TITLE> Official Journal of the European Communities, Written Questions Series C Volume 36 Number 016 Language English </H.TITLE><IMPRINT> <PUBDATE> 1993 </PUBDATE> </IMPRINT> </MONOGR> </BIBLSTRUCT> </SOURCEDESC> </FILEDESC><PROFILEDESC> <LANGUSAGE> <LANGUAGE ID="EN" ISO639="en"> English </LANGUAGE> </LANGUSAGE> </PROFILEDESC></CESHEADER><TEXT LANG="en"> <BODY> <DIV TYPE="Article" LANG="en"> <HEAD> WRITTEN QUESTION <ABBR> N§ </ABBR><NUM TYPE="wqref"> 1463/91 </NUM>by <NAME TYPE="PERSON"> <ABBR REND="TAIL-SUPER"> Mrs </ABBR> Brigitte Ernst de la Graete </NAME>(V) to the Commission of the European Communities ( <DATE> 16 July 1991 </DATE>) </HEAD><DIV TYPE="Q" "=""> <HEAD> Subject: Energy cooperation: assessment </HEAD><P> Assessment of the Lom ; programmes of action in the ACP countries has brought to light various technical and political problems in respect of energy projects (particularly hydro-electric power stations). It has been shown that certain projects are not feasible because of a lack of funding in the ACP countries concerned, inaccurate economic, environmental and social impact studies or insufficient qualified personnel to supervise and plan the implementation of projects. </P><P> Who carried out the assessment and who provided the funding? </P><P> Can detailed results be forwarded to Parliament? </P><P> What conclusions does the Commission draw from this for future purposes? </P> </DIV><DIV TYPE="R"> <HEAD> Answer given by <NAME TYPE="PERSON"> <ABBR REND="TAIL-SUPER"> Mr </ABBR> Marin </NAME>on behalf of the Commission ( <DATE> 8 September 1992 </DATE>) </HEAD><P> The assessment of energy projects in ACP countries to which the Honourable Member refers was carried out by Sussex Research Associates Ltd of Britain, in tandem with Lahmeyer International of Germany. The assessment was funded under the Article entitled <Q> `evaluation of the results of Community aid and practical follow-up measures' </Q> within the Chapter of the 1986 budget on <Q> `specific measures for cooperation with developing countries' </Q>. </P><P> The Commission will forward directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a copy of the <DATE> May 1988 </DATE>summary report on this evaluation of energy projects in ACP countries. </P><P> All assessments seek to make it possible to use the lessons of past experience to improve action in the future. In this particular case, thanks to the recommendations of the study (which were turned into <Q> `basic principles' </Q> by the meeting of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of <DATE> 6 and 7 May 1991 </DATE>), the departments of the Commission with responsibility for this field now possess guidelines which promise to improve activities in energy-related matters. </P> </DIV> </DIV><DIV TYPE="Article"> <HEAD> WRITTEN QUESTION <ABBR> N§ </ABBR><NUM TYPE="wqref"> 2579/91 </NUM> by <NAME TYPE="PERSON"><ABBR REND="TAIL-SUPER"> Mrs </ABBR> Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE) </NAME> to the Commission of the European Communities (<DATE> 14 November 1991 </DATE>) </HEAD><DIV TYPE="Q"> <HEAD> Subject: Tax discrimination against cross-border workers in the German-Netherlands border area </HEAD><P> Tax arrangements for cross-border workers are governed by an agreement concluded by Germany and the Netherlands on <DATE> 16 June 1959 </DATE> with the purpose of preventing double taxation. In 1980, a protocol to the agreement laid down that 90 % of income must be earned in the country of employment in order to ensure that Dutch cross-border workers were placed on an equal footing with German workers. </P><P> However, a Dutch cross-border worker who does not meet the 90 % requirement is not entitled to the wages tax annual adjustment in the Federal Republic of Germany. </P><P> What will the Commission do to end his discrimination? </P> </DIV><DIV TYPE="R"> <HEAD> Answer given by <NAME TYPE="PERSON"><ABBR REND="TAIL-SUPER"> Mrs </ABBR> Scrivener </NAME> on behalf of the Commission (<DATE> 26 October 1992 </DATE>) </HEAD><P> Under German income tax law, the wages tax annual adjustment (Lohnsteuerjahresausgleich) is available only to persons with unlimited tax liability (unbeschrenkte Steuerpflicht), i.e. who have their permanent address or are ordinarily resident in Germany. </P><P> Accordingly, frontier workers who have their permanent address in another Member State, except those covered by the additional protocol of <DATE> 18 March 1980 </DATE> to the Convention concluded on <DATE> 16 June 1959 </DATE> between Germany and the Netherlands with a view to avoiding double taxation, may not benefit from the wages tax annual adjustment. </P><P> The Commission takes the view that the exclusion from the annual adjustment of frontier workers who do not have their permanent address or are not ordinarily resident in Germany is an infringement of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 7 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community <REF TARGET="NOTE1"> (1) </REF>. It has, therefore, initiated infringement proceedings against Germany under Article 169. </P><NOTE N="1" ID="NOTE1"> (1) OJ <ABBR> N§ </ABBR> L 257, 19. 10. 1968. </NOTE> </DIV> </DIV><DIV TYPE="Article"> <HEAD> WRITTEN QUESTION <ABBR> N§ </ABBR><NUM TYPE="wqref"> 3210/91 </NUM> by <NAME TYPE="PERSON"><ABBR REND="TAIL-SUPER"> Mr </ABBR> Jean-Pierre Raffarin (LDR) </NAME> to the Commission of the European Communities (<DATE> 28 January 1992 </DATE>) </HEAD><DIV TYPE="Q"> <HEAD> Subject: The legal implications of classifying non-game birds </HEAD><P> The Muntingh report on hunting calls for certain species of game birds to be protected on the grounds that they are liable to be confused with protected species, when hunters are known for their knowledge of fauna and are perfectly able to distinguish between different species. </P><P> Looking at these proposals from a legal point of view, is the Commission aware that the resulting case law will give legal force to what is no more than an approximation? </P> </DIV><DIV TYPE="R"> <HEAD> Answer given by <NAME TYPE="PERSON"><ABBR REND="TAIL-SUPER"> Mr </ABBR> Van Miert </NAME> on behalf of the Commission (<DATE> 4 September 1992 </DATE>) </HEAD><P> The report referred to by the Honourable Member is not the sort which can have direct legal effects per se. </P><P> Although the Commission is aware that the report could be used, albeit in combination with many other elements, for interpreting certain provisions of Directive 79/409/EEC, or its amendment, relating to the protection of wild birds, it would point out that this could happen only in exceptional circumstances, and the same applies for all reports or similar documents which may be considered part of the preparation work for Community legislation. </P> </DIV> </DIV> </BODY></TEXT></CESDOC>
<COUNTRIES><COUNTRY><NAME> Belgium </NAME><CODE> BE </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Denmark </NAME><CODE> DK </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> France </NAME><CODE> FR </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Germany </NAME><CODE> DE </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Greece </NAME><CODE> GR </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Ireland </NAME><CODE> IE </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Italy </NAME><CODE> IT </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Luxembourg </NAME><CODE> LU </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Netherlands </NAME><CODE> NL </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Portugal </NAME><CODE> PT </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Spain </NAME><CODE> SP </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> United Kingdom </NAME><CODE> UK </CODE></COUNTRY><COUNTRY><NAME> Britain </NAME><CODE> UK </CODE></COUNTRY></COUNTRIES>