WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4213/97 by Bryan CASSIDY to the Commission. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)
21. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 323/17 Joint answer to Written Questions E-4196/97, E-4197/97, E-4198/97, E-4199/97, E-4200/97, E-4201/97 and E-4204/97 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998) Article 8 of the current legislation governing the structural funds, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), lays down that áthe regions covered by Objective 1 shall be regions at NUTS level II whose per capita GDP, on the basis of the figures for the last three years, is less than 75% of the Community averageí. The regional GDPs are estimated using a standard methodology for all regions of the Community. The method used is based on two variables: the national GDP for a given period and the regional structure of the corresponding gross value added. The latest data currently available relate to 1994. The data for 1995 are being drawn up, and those for 1996 will be available by the end of this year. The statistical information requested by the honourable Member, taken from Eurostatís REGIO database, is being sent to him and the Secretariat-General of Parliament. It should be noted that this information is not available for Valenciennes, Avesnes and Douai (which are areas lower than NUTS level II, eligible by way of exception under Objective 1). (1) OJ L 193, 31. 7. 1993. (98/C 323/22) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4213/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998) Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94) This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece. Where wide-ranging changes to the VAT, which may potentially distort competition between businesses, are contemplated by the European Commission, is it unusual to exclude economic operators entirely from the consultation process? (98/C 323/23) WRITTEN QUESTION E-4214/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998) Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94) This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece. Do administrators in the European Commission have any discretion to refuse to promulgate a ruling of the ECJ in a particular case? If there is no such discretion, what remedy is there for a business or an individual against an administrator who is responsible for obstructing the laid-down procedure? Is there an internal disciplinary procedure? What compensation may be claimed by the business/individual, and from whom?