do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 126/96 by Raul ROSADO FERNANDES to the Commission. The implications for competition of the system of tax deduction applied by a Member State of the European Union (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, ROSADO FERNANDES
Subjects: Spain, State aid, investment abroad, restriction on competition, shareholding, single market, tax relief













EUR-Lex - 91996E0126(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0126(01)

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 126/96 by Raul ROSADO FERNANDES to the Commission. The implications for competition of the system of tax deduction applied by a Member State of the European Union (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0002 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/96 by Raul Rosado Fernandes (UPE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: The implications for competition of the system of tax deduction applied by a Member State of the European UnionThe tax deduction system applied in Spain gives the right to a tax credit, which constitutes a permanent reduction in tax and not simply a temporary benefit. The eligible investments include the following categories of expenditure:1. New conversions into immovable property for purposes of business development,2. Setting up of foreign branches or subsidiaries and acquisition of shares in foreign companies directly linked to the export of goods and services,3. Market research expenditure with a view to launching products or opening export markets.Categories 2 and 3 cover operations carried out both inside and outside the European Union.Does the Commission consider that these arrangements - which could result in direct public aid from the Spanish State for the acquisition of shares in a country of the European Union - are compatible with the rules devolving from the Treaties establishing the EEC and the ECSC and later secondary legislation?Supplementary answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)Further to its answer dated 1 April 1996, ((OJ C 183, 24.6.1996, p. 13. )) the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the measures referred to by him were notified to it by the Spanish Government on Spain's accession. It has never raised any objections to their implementation.Similar measures exist in most member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Commission is planning to draw up an inventory of measures introduced in Member States with a view to promoting investment abroad and is looking into the criteria to be applied in examining the compatibility of such measures with the common market.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 159/96 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. Sicilian citrus fruits
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSUMECI
Subjects: Sicily, citrus fruit, customs duties, restriction on competition, tariff quota, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E0159 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0159

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 159/96 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. Sicilian citrus fruits  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0041 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0159/96 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: Sicilian citrus fruitsGiven that in the European Union citrus imports from third countries are regulated by the quota arrangements laid down in cooperation agreements, what action does the Commission intend to take to prevent Member States, such as Spain, from literally recycling citrus fruits from Morocco and South Africa, by placing them on the European market under their own trademarks, thereby circumventing the quota arrangements and causing serious damage to the quality standards and production levels of producer countries such as Italy (Sicilian citrus fruit production)?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1996)The Commission would remind the honourable member that the purpose of tariff quotas is solely to offer a measure of customs relief granted to certain third countries, not to restrict imports from any third country.The Commission considers that the increased intra-Community trade resulting, as forecast, from the single market is proof of the advancement and enhanced competitiveness of Europe's entrepreneurs.The regulations require the geographical origin of fruit to be displayed at the point of retail sale. The Commission is not aware of any offences of the kind referred to, and in the absence of any precise information which the honourable member might care to supply, it sees no reason to investigate the matter further.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 134/96 by Honório NOVO to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, NOVO
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, impact study, motorway, road building













EUR-Lex - 91996E0134 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0134

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 134/96 by Honório NOVO to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0039 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0134/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados CarvalhosIn reply to my questions Nos 2804/94 ((OJ C 139, 5.6.1995, p. 32. ))and 1861/95 ((OJ C 311, 22.11.1995, p. 19. )), Commissioner Bjenegard claimed on 21 September 1995 that the Commission had examined the observations forwarded by the Portuguese authorities and believed that 'further information was necessary'. As a result, the Commission had contacted the Portuguese authorities 'once more'.Has the Commission received further explanations in connection with the possible violation of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) with regard to the way in which the environmental impact assessment of the building work on the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos was carried out? If so, are these explanations satisfactory? If they are not, what is the Commission going to do?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 April 1996)The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his written questions E-2804/94 ((OJ C 139, 5.6.1995. )) and E-1861/95 ((OJ C 311, 22.11.1995. )) where it stated that it had examined the observations forwarded by the Portuguese authorities, and believed that 'further information was necessary'.Indeed, the Portuguese authorities had been contacted, and the Commission received additional information which, on examination and evaluation, was judged insufficient.Consequently, following further requests to the Portuguese authorities for more detailed information (February 1996), and to which the Commission, to date, has not received a reply, it regrets that it is not possible to give a definitive reply concerning the above-mentioned written question.As direct contacts have now been established between the Commission and the Portuguese authorities to resolve this matter, the Commission will inform the Honourable Member as soon as it receives the information requested.
Decision on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision adapting Decision No. 1110/94/EC concerning the Fourth Framework Programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994-1998) following the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (C4-0581/95 - 95/0092(COD)) (Codecision procedure: second reading)
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, EAEC, Finland, Sweden, accession to the European Union, enlargement of the Union, research and development, technological change













EUR-Lex - 51995AP0333 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AP0333

Decision on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision adapting Decision No. 1110/94/EC concerning the Fourth Framework Programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994-1998) following the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (C4-0581/95 - 95/0092(COD)) (Codecision procedure: second reading)  


Official Journal C 047 , 19/02/1996 P. 0014 





A4-0333/95Decision on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Decision adapting Decision No. 1110/94/EC concerning the Fourth Framework Programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994-1998) following the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (C4- 0581/95 - 95/0092(COD))(Codecision procedure: second reading)The European Parliament,- having regard to the common position of the Council, C4-0581/95 - 95/0092(COD),- having regard to its opinion at first reading ((OJ C 249, 25.9.1995, p. 45.)) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council, COM(95)0145 ((OJC142, 8.6.1995, p. 15.)),- having regard to Article 189b(2) of the EC Treaty,- having regard to Rule 68 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy (A4-0333/95),1. Approves the common position;2. Calls on the Council to adopt the act definitively, and as soon as possible, in accordance with the common position;3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 191(1) of the EC Treaty;4. Instructs its Secretary-General duly to sign the act and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal;5. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and Commission.
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament' s opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the cooperation agreement between the European Community and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (COM(95)0305 - C4- 0348/95 - 95/0173(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: Committee on External Economic Relations, European Parliament
Subjects: Viet Nam













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0004 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0004

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament' s opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the cooperation agreement between the European Community and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (COM(95)0305 - C4- 0348/95 - 95/0173(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 047 , 19/02/1996 P. 0025 





A4-0004/96Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the cooperation agreement between the European Community and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (COM(95)0305 - C4- 0348/95 - 95/0173(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the proposal for a Council Decision, COM(95)0305 - 95/0173(CNS),- having regard to the cooperation agreement initialled by the Commission (COM(95)0305),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Articles 113 and 130y in conjunction with Article 228(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (C4- 0348/95),- having regard to Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on External Economic Relations and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy and the Committee on Development and Cooperation (A4-0004/96),1. Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;2. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 134/96 by Honório NOVO to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, NOVO
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, environmental impact, exchange of information, impact study, motorway, road building













EUR-Lex - 91996E0134(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0134(01)

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 134/96 by Honório NOVO to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0001 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0134/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados CarvalhosIn reply to my questions Nos 2804/94 ((OJ C 139, 5.6.1995, p. 32. ))and 1861/95 ((OJ C 311, 22.11.1995, p. 19. )), Commissioner Bjenegard claimed on 21 September 1995 that the Commission had examined the observations forwarded by the Portuguese authorities and believed that 'further information was necessary'. As a result, the Commission had contacted the Portuguese authorities 'once more'.Has the Commission received further explanations in connection with the possible violation of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) with regard to the way in which the environmental impact assessment of the building work on the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos was carried out? If so, are these explanations satisfactory?If they are not, what is the Commission going to do?Additional answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)In addition to its answer of 19 April 1996 ((OJ C 185, 25.6.1996, p. 39. )), the Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member of the following.Under Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be assessed for their impact before being granted authorization.Additional information supplied by the Portuguese authorities indicates that building work for the IP1 project between Freixo and Carvalhos was started before the completion of the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in the abovementioned Directive.The Commission will bring these facts to the attention of the Portuguese authorities and will ask them to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the principles laid down in the Directive are fully respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 154/96 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Contribution by the European Union to the cost of desalination plants on the Costa del Sol, Spain
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, FERNANDEZ ALBOR
Subjects: Andalusia, EU aid, EU financing, co-financing, drought, saltwater, water treatment













EUR-Lex - 91996E0154 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0154

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 154/96 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Contribution by the European Union to the cost of desalination plants on the Costa del Sol, Spain  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0154/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: Contribution by the European Union to the cost of desalination plants on the Costa del Sol, SpainAs a result of the chronic scarcity of water along the entire coast of the Costa del Sol in Spain, which is due to acute droughts, the relevant regional and local authorities have decided to build desalination plants to cope with the water shortages which in some summers seriously threaten the economic development of this important Community tourist region.The authorities have repeatedly stated that Union funds will be available to cover 85% of the high cost of these desalination plants, so that private enterprise can recover the cost of investing in the plants. The President of the Regional Government himself has said that funds from Brussels are guaranteed to enable the projects in question to be started.However, so far only the Spanish national and regional authorities have given this assurance. Can the Commission confirm that Union funds are guaranteed to cover 85% of the cost of the desalination plants at Malaga and, on the Costa del Sol, at Marbella?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Matthies on behalf of the Commission (7 March 1996)Though it is true that the Spanish authorities have said that they would be submitting desalination projects for cofinancing by the Cohesion Fund in 1996, no such project has yet been submitted.The Commission cannot say whether such projects will be cofinanced until applications have been received and examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 176/96 by Kenneth COATES to the Commission. Environmental protection - the cumulative effect of opencast coalmining
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: COATES
Subjects: environmental protection, impact study, mining operation













EUR-Lex - 91996E0176 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0176

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 176/96 by Kenneth COATES to the Commission. Environmental protection - the cumulative effect of opencast coalmining  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0009 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/96 by Kenneth Coates (PSE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: Environmental protection - the cumulative effect of opencast coalminingHow can the requirement of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40 )) concerning the 'cumulative' effect of developments subject to environmental impact assessments be enforced?What research and other information does the Commission have on this matter, with respect to the cumulative effect on the local environment of several separate opencast coalmining sites in a particular locality?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1996)Directive 85/337/EEC requires environmental assessments to be carried out in relation to projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location (Article 2). It is necessary to consider each project in relation to the environmental conditions in the particular area in which it is proposed to be located. Existing environmental conditions, including those arising from similar projects in the locality, should therefore be taken into account when considering whether a project falls within the scope of the Directive. If a project does fall within the scope of the Directive, the Directive requires the assessment, in the light of each individual case, of the direct and indirect effects of the project including cumulative effects (Article 3 and Annex III). Where it has been determined that the Directive applies, in accordance with this analysis, it can be enforced through the mechanisms provided by the Member State in its implementation legislation.The Commission does not have at present any relevant research on the cumulative effect of several opencast coalmining sites. Nevertheless the Commission acknowledges the need to improve the coverage of indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as impact interactions in the environment impact assessments undertaken in the Member States and is considering launching a study in this area. Furthermore, the Commission is currently considering a proposal for a directive on strategic environmental asssessment which, according to the present draft, will cover plans and programmes in the extraction sector. A number of case studies are being prepared in relation to this proposal which will address, inter alia, the issue of cumulative impact assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 161/96 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Positive discrimination of candidates for elections
Date: 1996-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: United Kingdom, anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, candidate, equal treatment, gender equality













EUR-Lex - 91996E0161 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0161

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 161/96 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Positive discrimination of candidates for elections  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0004 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0161/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (1 February 1996)Subject: Positive discrimination of candidates for electionsWhen the industrial tribunal in Leeds ruled on 8 January 1996 that the 'Emily's List' campaign of the British Labour Party involving women-only shortlists in some constituencies for elections to the Commons was illegal, did it base its judgment partly on directive 76/207/EEC ((OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40. )) and/or Article 119 of the EEC Treaty ((The Guardian, 9 January 1996; De Volkskrant, 10 January 1996. ))?Does the Commission share the view that 'membership of parliament is... a job' ((De Volkskrant, 10 January 1996 )), and that the allocation of political offices is therefore covered by the scope of directive 76/207/EEC and Article 119?If so, do the women's quotas on election lists which are used in various Member States by political parties constitute a form of positive discrimination which is an infringement of Community legislation in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C-450/93 (Kalanke v. Bremen)?If Directive 76/207/EEC and/or Article 119 cover the procedures for nominating candidates and electing persons to political office, is the Court's judgment banning the indirect discrimination in favour of women applicable to these areas?If so, is it then conceivable that the Court may be asked to rule on whether the British single-member constituency system ('first-past-the-post'), which obliges candidates to satisfy a catalogue of stereotype expectations - thereby putting major obstacles in the way of nominating and electing women to political office - constitutes a form of indirect discrimination which infringes the Treaty?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1996)The Commission considers that both Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions refer only to employment relationships covered by a contract drawn up between the worker and his employer. Given that a candidature for election is not an employment relationship as described above, it does not fall within the scope of either Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive 76/207/EEC.