WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Municipality of Rome's parking ban and levy of entry charge.
C 26 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 The Commission has also blocked payments of a subsidy to a group of recipients, among which the Centre is only one party, and is thus punishing undertakings having absolutely no involvement in this case. Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (27 April 2000) The Commission is not aware that one of its officials made a public statement on the matter of guilt in the case referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that a statement was made by one of the Officeís officials on the fact that, in this case, an appeal had been lodged with the Prosecutor general in accordance with the provisions of the code of criminal procedure of Denmark against the decision by the Prosecutor not to press charges. The Commission would point out that the matter of payments to beneficiaries is naturally assessed in the light of the protection of the Communityís financial interests. Other payments to the same beneficiaries in cases vitiated by irregularities may be suspended where necessary, or they may be recovered by offsetting in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and its implementing details (1), and the internal procedures relating to the recovery of entitlements under the EC and Euratom Treaties. To date, no final decision has been taken in the case to which the Honourable Member refers. (1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, OJ L 315, 16. 12. 1993. (2001/C 26 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Municipality of Romeís parking ban and levy of entry charge For the Jubilee, the municipality of Rome has decided to prevent tourist coaches parking in the city and has also imposed an entry charge on them. This decision is certain to cause significant losses for tourist and transport firms. Does the Commission not consider that the decision is also detrimental to non-Italian European tourist firms which had organised trips to Rome before the municipalityís decision? How does the Commission intend to reply to the protest it has received from the BDO, the association of German coach operators? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (29 March 2000) The closure of central Rome has prompted questions from various organisations. The Commission replied to the German Transport Association (BDO) by letter dated 18 January 2000 and is also preparing a reply 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/15 to a question from the German authorities. Having studied the dossier provided by the Italian authorities, and with regard to the restrictions placed on the movement of tourist coaches in the city centre, the Commission finds that the Italian authorities have not infringed Community law. Given the large numbers of visitors expected in Rome during the year 2000 (around 29 million visitors, with between 2 000 and 2 500 coaches per day), the plan drawn up by the city authorities has several objectives. It is designed to conserve the cityís cultural and architectural heritage, protect the health and quality of life of the people of Rome and limit the already serious levels of pollution. To this end, the city authorities are planning to divide the city into a number of zones, some of which will be off limits to all traffic. However, sites will be provided for tourist coaches, facilities will be organised for setting travellers down in the city centre, and city centre access control points will be set up at which coaches will be directed to specified parking areas. Exceptions will be made for certain categories of traveller, such as the handicapped. Measures will be taken to improve the cityís urban transport network and road signs. All the contracts for carrying out these measures will be awarded via invitation to tender so as to ensure transparency and the requisite competition. These measures are in line with Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 11/98 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus, (2) and in particular Article 12, which allows local excursions to be carried out within the framework of an international service. It should be borne in mind that the main purpose of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is to regulate international transport. Local authoritiesí policing powers allow them to regulate local traffic. The application of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is without prejudice to the application of this policing power as proposed by the City of Rome. Accordingly, the Commission does not envisage initiating proceedings against Italy for infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92. The plan submitted by the Italian authorities does not indicate the existence of an entry charge. In any event, as local taxes are not harmonised at Community level, the introduction of an entry charge on tourist coaches could not run counter to Community law unless it contained discriminatory provisions, such as the application of a higher charge for coaches from other Member States. (1) OJ L 74, 20. 3. 1992. (2) OJ L 4, 8. 1. 1998. (2001/C 26 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (31 January 2000) Subject: Dioxin scare and PVC The WHO currently recommends that exposure should not top 1,4 TEQ/kg body weight per day, including dioxins and dioxin-like substances. In a recent report published on 30 November 1999, EU experts estimated the average dietary exposure for consumers within the EU to be as high as 2,6 TEQ/kg body weight per day. The average EU citizen therefore consumes more dioxin and dioxin-like substances than is acceptable according to the WHO. This means that the daily intake of these hazardous substances by the most vulnerable groups, such as babies and children, is clearly above the WHO recommendations. This situation has to changes as soon as possible. Which measures does the Commission intend to take in order to reduce adverse health effects related to exposure to dioxins?