do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 282/96 by Christoph KONRAD to the Council. Structure and role of the military arm of the Common Foreign and Security Policy
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, KONRAD
Subjects: European defence policy, Western European Union, armed forces













EUR-Lex - 91996E0282 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0282

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 282/96 by Christoph KONRAD to the Council. Structure and role of the military arm of the Common Foreign and Security Policy  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0006 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0282/96 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Structure and role of the military arm of the Common Foreign and Security Policy1. What structure and what role should the military arm of the European Union be given pursuant to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, as set out in Articles J.5 and J.8(3) of the Treaty on European Union?2. What are the Council's views on military law governing a future European army?3. How will the Council guarantee the right of association of members of armed forces in Europe?4. What action will the Council take to guarantee the statutory and social rights of soldiers in Europe, in particular those of integrated European units?Reply (2 August 1996)The Honourable Member will note that Articles J.5 and J.8(3) of the Treaty on European Union do not refer to the "structure and role of the military arm of the Common Foreign and Security Policy".While taking into account the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States, as stated in Article J.4(4), Article J.4(2) of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that "the Union requests the Western European Union (WEU), which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications.". The role of the WEU as the defence component of the European Union and as a means to strengthen the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance is also dealt with in the two declarations on the Western European Union included in the Final Act signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992.Questions raised by the Honourable Member under 2, 3 and 4 have not been referred to the Council.
Decision of the Secretary-General of the Council of 27 February 1996 relating to fees in the context of public access to Council documents
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: General Secretariat of the Council
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU publication, access to EU information, consultation of information, payable service













EUR-Lex - 31996D0314(02) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0314(02)

Decision of the Secretary-General of the Council of 27 February 1996 relating to fees in the context of public access to Council documents  


Official Journal C 074 , 14/03/1996 P. 0003 - 0003 





DECISION OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL of 27 February 1996 relating to fees in the context of public access to Council documents (96/C 74/02)THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents, and in particular Article 3 (1) thereof,Whereas applicants may have access to a Council document either by consulting it on the spot or by having a copy sent at their expense;Whereas a fee should be set for copies of documents requested in the context of public access to Council documents, in order to cover administrative costs,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 In the context of the Council Decision of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents, a fee of ECU 10 plus ECU 0,036 per sheet of paper shall be charged by the General Secretariat of the Council for copies of printed documents exceeding 30 pages. Charges for information in other formats shall be set on a case-by-case basis but shall not exceed what is reasonable.Article 2 This Decision shall take effect one month after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply only to requests for public access to Council documents received after that date.Done at Brussels, 27 February 1996.Juergen TRUMPFSecretary-General of the Council of the European Union
96/193/EC: Commission Decision of 27 February 1996 amending Decision 94/198/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Brazil (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Brazil, fishery produce, fishery product, health control, import













EUR-Lex - 31996D0193 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0193

96/193/EC: Commission Decision of 27 February 1996 amending Decision 94/198/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Brazil (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 061 , 12/03/1996 P. 0043 - 0046 





COMMISSION DECISION of 27 February 1996 amending Decision 94/198/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Brazil (Text with EEA relevance) (96/193/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by Directive 95/71/EC (2), and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,Whereas the list of establishments approved by Brazil for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 94/198/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Brazil;Whereas the competent authority in Brazil has communicated a new list of establishments;Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments accordingly;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 Annex B of Decision 94/198/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 27 February 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.(2) OJ No L 332, 30. 12. 1995, p. 40.(3) OJ No L 93, 12. 4. 1994, p. 26.(4) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.ANNEX 'ANNEX B>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 316/96 by James MOORHOUSE to the Council. Use of the Ioannina Compromise in the Council
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MOORHOUSE
Subjects: Italy, United Kingdom, aid to agriculture, farmers' income, floating rate, proposal (EU), unanimity













EUR-Lex - 91996E0316 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0316

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 316/96 by James MOORHOUSE to the Council. Use of the Ioannina Compromise in the Council  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/96 by James Moorhouse (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Use of the Ioannina Compromise in the CouncilThe Ioannina Compromise of March 1994 has, according to press reports, so far been invoked by only one Member State on one occasion, namely by the United Kingdom in October 1995 in respect of a Commission proposal allowing individual Member States to compensate farmers for income losses as a result of currency movements.1. How many and which Member States, representing what number of votes in the Council, opposed the proposal, first during initial discussion, and then at the moment when the UK invoked the Ioannina Compromise?2. How many and which Member States, representing what number of votes in the Council, either voted against the proposal or abstained on its final adoption?3. What changes were made to the proposal between the time the Ioannina Compromise was invoked and the final adoption of the proposal?4. What, if any conclusions does the Council draw from this experience about the operation in practice of the Ioannina Compromise?Reply (11 June 1996)It is correct, as the Honourable Member says, that the Council Decision of 29 March 1994 on qualified-majority decision-making by the Council (94/C 105/01), as amended by the Decision of 1 January 1995 (95/C 1/01), commonly known as the 'Ioannina Compromise', has so far been invoked only once, at the Council meeting on 24 and 25 October 1995, when the Council adopted Regulation No 2611/95 establishing the possibility of aid being granted in compensation for losses of agricultural income caused by monetary movements in other Member States (OJ No L 268, 10.11.1995, p. 3).As reported in Press Release No 10469/95, the United Kingdom abstained and the Italian delegation voted against when the Regulation was adopted. Each of those two Council members has ten votes under Article 148(2) of the EC Treaty.A solution to the problem raised by the United kingdom was thus actually found during the meeting at which the Decision of 20 March 1994 was invoked. In the Council's view, that experience shows that the Decision does not prevent the Council from operating satisfactorily.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 309/96 by Honor FUNK to the Council. Brussels office of the Tirol Europe region
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, FUNK
Subjects: Austria, Belgium, European integration, Italy, anti-European movement, information centre, judicial inquiry













EUR-Lex - 91996E0309 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0309

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 309/96 by Honor FUNK to the Council. Brussels office of the Tirol Europe region  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0014 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/96 by Honor Funk (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Brussels office of the Tirol Europe region1. Is the Council aware of the fact that, in connection with the opening of a Europe office in Brussels with four members of staff, the public prosecutor's offices of Bolzano and Trento have started an investigation concerning suspicion of activities against the integrity, independence and unity of the Italian state?2. What measures does the Council intend to take to examine whether these investigations have been correct and clear thus far?3. What is the Council's position on the objections of the regional governments of Bolzano and Trento and members of Parliament in the debate on 17 January in Strasbourg?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0244/96, E-0258/96, E-0309/96 and E-0584/96 (3 June 1996)The Council has not been informed of the subject referred to by the Honourable Members nor indeed of the opening of information offices for other regions. This question does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 318/96 by James MOORHOUSE to the Council. Use of qualified majority voting in the Council
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MOORHOUSE
Subjects: abstentionism, election result, legislation, proposal (EU), qualified majority, unanimity













EUR-Lex - 91996E0318 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0318

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 318/96 by James MOORHOUSE to the Council. Use of qualified majority voting in the Council  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0020 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/96 by James Moorhouse (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Use of qualified majority voting in the Council1. On how many occasions has each Member State, by name, either abstained or voted against a proposal in the Council, on any issue subject to decision by qualified majority voting, since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union?2. What is the total number of proposals subject to QMV, on which any Member State has (a) abstained, or (b) voted against, since the same date?3. What is the total number of proposals subject to QMV on which common positions or votes to adopt have evidenced unanimity among the Member States?Reply (1 July 1996)Further to his Written Question No E-2479/95 (OJ No C 56, 26.2.1996, p. 20), the Council Secretariat has already sent the Honourable Member a list of all definitive legislative acts adopted with negative votes and/or abstentions during the period 6 December 1993 to 31 December 1994, indicating the delegations that voted against or abstained in each case.In future, a list of the Council's legislative acts, with a record of the votes, will be published in the Review of the Council's Work, the 1995 edition of which is currently in preparation.The Honourable Member's attention is also drawn to the fact that, since October 1995, pursuant to the code of conduct on public access to minutes and statements, periodic summaries are published of the definitive legislative acts adopted by the Council. These summaries include the statements for the minutes as well as the records of the votes and are forwarded as a matter of course to the European Parliament.With respect to the number of legislative acts adopted unanimously and those adopted by qualified majority, the summaries drawn up for the last three months of 1995 reveal that, of the 73 definitive legislative acts adopted, 57 were adopted unanimously (including 8 with abstentions), 14 with negative votes and 2 with both negative votes and abstentions.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 317/96 by James MOORHOUSE to the Council. Use of the Luxembourg Compromise in the Council
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MOORHOUSE
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU Member State, European Union, European political cooperation, Single European Act, cooperation procedure, qualified majority













EUR-Lex - 91996E0317 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0317

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 317/96 by James MOORHOUSE to the Council. Use of the Luxembourg Compromise in the Council  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0022 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/96 by James Moorhouse (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Use of the Luxembourg Compromise in the Council1. On how many occasions have Member States attempted to invoke the Luxembourg Compromise in the Council since the entry into effect of- the Single European Act, and- the Maastricht Treaty on European Union?2. In each of the cases listed in answer to question 1 above, which Member State invoked the Compromise?3. Does the Council agree with the British and French governments that the Luxembourg Compromise remains a living reality at the heart of Council decision-making?Reply (3 June 1996)1. The Council does not have any record of these matters and is therefore unable to provide the information for which the Honourable Member has asked in questions 1 and 2.2. The conclusions of the extraordinary Council meeting in Luxembourg on 17, 18, 27 and 28 January 1966 do not prevent the Council from taking its decisions in accordance with the EC Treaty. The fact that that Treaty provides in many cases for adoption by majority does not prevent Members of the Council from endeavouring, as a general rule, to narrow their differences before the Council votes.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 329/96 by Sir Jack STEWART-CLARK to the Council. Council's subsidiary bodies on drugs
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, STEWART-CLARK
Subjects: Council of the European Union, crime, drug addiction, public health













EUR-Lex - 91996E0329 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0329

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 329/96 by Sir Jack STEWART-CLARK to the Council. Council's subsidiary bodies on drugs  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0021 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/96 by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Council's subsidiary bodies on drugs1. Will the Council list the membership of each of the following subsidiary bodies on drugs, giving names and positions held in the Member State?- National Drugs Co-ordinators- Drugs and Organised Crime Working Party (third pillar)- CSFP Working Party on Drugs (second pillar)- Health Working Party (first pillar)- Group of Experts from the Member States, set up by the Cannes European Council of 26/27 June 1995-Ad-hoc Working Party on Drugs, set up by the Madrid European Council of 15/16 December 19952. What plans does the Council have to rationalize this state of affairs?Reply (11 June 1996)The composition of the delegations on the various working parties and expert groups, which in any event changes frequently, is a matter exclusively for the Member States.The Presidency, assisted by the Council General Secretariat, coordinates the proceedings of the various groups.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 274/96 by Peter CRAMPTON to the Council. Mordechai Vanunu
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: CRAMPTON, European Parliament
Subjects: EP resolution, Israel, human rights, imprisonment, nuclear weapon, prison system, settlement of disputes













EUR-Lex - 91996E0274 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0274

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 274/96 by Peter CRAMPTON to the Council. Mordechai Vanunu  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0006 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Mordechai VanunuConsidering the recent acknowledgement by the Government of Israel that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and might be prepared to give them up as part of a peace deal with its Arab neighbours, and in the light of the continued imprisonment in solitary confinement of Mordechai Vanunu, have any representations been made to the Government of Israel concerning the release of Mr Vanunu? If not, are there any plans for such representations? If not, why not?Joint reply to Written Questions E-0274/96 and E-0594/96 (2 August 1996)Mr Vanunu's case has not been raised in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 319/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Council. National inspection institutions in the Member States
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, GARRIGA POLLEDO
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, common agricultural policy, competence of the Member States, financial control













EUR-Lex - 91996E0319 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0319

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 319/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Council. National inspection institutions in the Member States  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0004 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: National inspection institutions in the Member StatesCan the Council provide me with a comparative study of the current situation of the national audit bodies of the 15 Member States, stating their powers and areas of activity, particularly in those countries where they co-exist with regional audit bodies?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0319/96 and E-0728/96 (16 July 1996)It is for each Member State, within the framework of its own institutional organization, to fulfil its control obligations and to determine whether the coexistence of national and regional levels of control has a positive or a negative impact on the effectiveness of checks.Under Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council ((OJ L 94, 28.4.1970 )), on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, responsibility for checking EAGGF expenditure lies with the Member States. Article 9 of the same Regulation deals with the relations between Member States and the Commission in this matter.In connection with the Honourable Member's question, it may be noted that in recent years the Council has adopted a number of Regulations which have reinforced the control of EAGGF expenditure.Regulation No 386/90 ((OJ L 42, 16.2.1990. )) introduced a minimum physical check on exports (refunds); Regulation No 595/91 ((OJ L 67, 14.3.1991. )) provided for Community funding to reinforce checks; Regulation No 3508/92 ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992. )) established an integrated administration and control system necessitated by the expanded number of recipients of premiums and aids following the reform of the CAP; Regulation No 165/94 ((OJ L 24, 29.1.1994. )) provides funding for remote sensing, which is used for checks on setaside declarations. Lastly, Regulation No 1469/95 ((OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. )) laid down procedures for dealing with fraud and suspected fraud against a number of Member States.On a broader level, the Council reformed the account clearance procedures by means of Regulation No 1287/95 ((OJ L 125, 8.6.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 280/96 by Bernd LANGE to the Council. Whereabouts of Resit Yildiz, a Turkish citizen, from Cilesizküyü (Mezre/Miheke), Nusaybin
Date: 1996-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, LANGE
Subjects: European political cooperation, Türkiye, democracy, human rights, international negotiations, political kidnapping, representative of local or regional authority













EUR-Lex - 91996E0280 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0280

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 280/96 by Bernd LANGE to the Council. Whereabouts of Resit Yildiz, a Turkish citizen, from Cilesizküyü (Mezre/Miheke), Nusaybin  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0014 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0280/96 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Council (27 February 1996)Subject: Whereabouts of Resit Yildiz, a Turkish citizen, from Cilesizküyü (Mezre/Miheke), NusaybinResit Yildiz, a Turkish citizen, from Cilesizküyü (Mezre/Miheke), Nusaybin, was taken from his home on 27 August 1995, since when he has vanished without trace. Mr Yildiz is a Kurd of the Yezidic faith and mayor of the last remaining Yezidic village in the district. There is still no definite information (according to the Federal Republic's Foreign Office) as to whether Mr Yildiz has been detained by Turkish security forces or has fallen victim to the PKK.1. To what extent does the Council regard this case as impeding its negotiations with Turkey?2. Will it make this, and other examples of glaring human rights violations in Turkey, the subject of future negotiations? 3. What long-term measures is the Council seeking to prevent future human rights violations of this nature in Turkey?Reply (13 June 1996)The Council attaches greatest importance to respect for human rights and democracy in Turkey and does not hesitate to condemn violations of them in contacts with the Turkish authorities. The Council has also made clear, and will continue to do so, that observance of the rule of law and of fundamental freedoms is the basis for the rapprochement of Turkey to the EU.With a view to adopting long-term measures the Council is continuing to monitor carefully the situation with regard to human rights and democratic development in Turkey. The Council has duly noted that, having given its assent, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the human rights situation in Turkey, which, inter alia, called on the Commission and the Council to monitor permanently human rights and democratic development in Turkey and requested the Commission to present a report on the situation to the European Parliament at least once a year.