WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Cost of translation and interpretation.
C 219 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 (2000/C 219 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Pressure against offshore centres What are currently the direct and indirect measures applied against offshore centres suspected of inadequate implementation of the money-laundering provisions (for example, administrative guidance given by G7 banking supervisors or other authorities to stop banking transfers to certain jurisdictions)? Is there any reason of principle why similar measures might not be applied against centres which failed to implement a withholding tax or enter into reporting agreements on non-resident investments? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (17 January 2000) The Commission is not aware of any cases in which banking supervisors of the Group of seven most industrialised countries (G7) or other authorities have actually stopped banking transfers to offshore centres considered to have inadequate defences against money laundering. There have, however, been cases where administrative guidance has been given. The Financial action task force on money laundering (FATF), the foremost world body active in this area, can publicly call on financial institutions to give special attention to business relations and transactions with people, companies and financial institutions, from countries which do not or insufficiently apply the relevant standards. Such action was taken in 1996 against the Seychelles, whose Economic Development Act appeared to provide a safe haven for criminal money. As a result of this, and diplomatic action, the Act was not implemented. In April 1999 both the United States and United Kingdom authorities issued a formal notice to financial institutions warning them about financial transactions involving Antigua and Barbuda. On a more general level, the FATF is currently engaged, on the basis of a mandate from the G7, in a major initiative to identify those countries and territories which provide insufficient co-operation in the global fight against money laundering. (2000/C 219 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/99 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Cost of translation and interpretation Please indicate the cost of translation and interpretation in the EU in 1999 and estimate the cost in each case, assuming the continuation of present language policies, if one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten or eleven languages were added to the existing official languages. 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/129 Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 2000) The Honourable Member is informed that the cost of translation and interpretation as estimated by the European institutions in the 1999 budget amounts to approximately € 686 million. The breakdown by institution is as follows: Institution Translation Interpretation Parliament Council Commission Court of Justice Court of Auditors Economic and Social Committee (ESC) Committee of the Regions (COR) Common organisational structure (ESC/COR) Total 103,1 131,0 218,7 37,6 8,2 0 0 24,1 522,7 61,1 46,0 42,5 4,9 0,4 6,0 2,3 0 163,2 (in million Euro) Total 164,2 177,0 261,2 42,5 8,6 6,0 2,3 24,1 685,9 The impact of adding one or more new languages to the existing official languages will be dealt with in a supplementary answer once estimates are available for all the European institutions. (2000/C 219 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2248/99 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission (1 December 1999) Subject: Licensing of private ambulance services In a judgment of 24 September 1998, the European Court of Justice decided that the transport of sick and injured persons was a service in respect of which invitations to tender must be issued. As a result, all Länder laws on rescue services should be amended. However, such amendments have not yet been made. In the meantime, the Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony (ref: 12 L 4158/97) has decided that áambulances used for the professional transport of sick or injured persons outside the scope of the public rescue service are not rescue service vehicles within the meaning of § 52(3)(4) of the Road Traffic Licensing Regulations (StVZO) and are therefore not permitted to operate on the public highway if equipped with warning lights emitting flashing blue light (rotating lights)í. Voluntary organisations, who are the private operatorsí traditional competitors, hold every licence issued in all German Länder in respect of emergency rescue services and so can keep the blue light on their ambulances, whilst private firms, who are in any case unable to operate emergency rescue services owing to the administrative monopoly in that area, cannot keep their blue lights. This has resulted in a substantial drop in the number of contracts awarded to private operators, because their vehicles cannot be equipped with blue lights for use in emergencies. Is the Commission aware that in Germany private firms are being refused licences to transport sick and injured persons (not to mention to provide emergency services) on the grounds that the demand for ambulances is already met and the issuing of further licences would push up costs? Does it take the view that this practice results in preferential treatment for old-established operators and prevents competition?