do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
96/528/ECSC: Commission Decision of 29 February 1996 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ECSC, Türkiye, coal, free-trade agreement, free-trade area, steel













EUR-Lex - 31996D0528 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0528

96/528/ECSC: Commission Decision of 29 February 1996 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community  


Official Journal L 227 , 07/09/1996 P. 0001 - 0002 





COMMISSION DECISION of 29 February 1996 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (96/528/ECSC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 95, first paragraph thereof,Whereas, following the Council Decision of 30 October 1995, the Commission finalized negotiations with Turkey for a free trade agreement between the Community and Turkey in products covered by the ECSC Treaty;Having consulted the Consultative Committee and with the unanimous assent of the Council,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 1. The Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Republic of Turkey on trade in products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community is hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community.2. The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Decision (1).Article 2 The President of the Commission will, on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community, give the notification provided for in Article 20 of the Agreement.Done at Brussels, 29 February 1996.For the CommissionThe PresidentJacques SANTER(1) See page 3 of the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 435/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Imprisonment on account of financial considerations
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: BLAK, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, Greenland, competence of the Member States, crime against individuals, imprisonment, mentally disabled person, offence, psychiatric confinement













EUR-Lex - 91996E0435 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0435

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 435/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Imprisonment on account of financial considerations  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0435/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Imprisonment on account of financial considerationsDenmark concluded an agreement with Greenland on the detention of mentally handicapped persons who have committed crimes. Persons (murderers) from Greenland are sentenced to imprisonment in closed institutions in Denmark. One person, for instance, received a 20-year sentence and has since been transferred from a closed to an open institution on the basis of a doctor's opinion to the effect that he is no longer dangerous and can look after himself.The essential point is, however, that the person concerned cannot be sent home to Greenland, as Greenland says that it does not have adequate financial resources. Greenland has a special relationship with Denmark, and Denmark therefore has a responsibility.Will the Commission state, as a matter of urgency, whether a Member State can deprive a person of his rights and detain him indefinitely on account of financial considerations?In its resolution A3-0231/92 ((OJ C 284, 2.11.1992, p. 49. )), Parliament:'Calls for the mentally handicapped... to be detained during criminal proceedings only where there is a danger to the general public and where other, less extreme measures cannot be taken',and'Calls for legal incapacitation to be made reversible in those Member States where it is not and for the mentally handicapped to have access to the courts at all times'.Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1996)The detention of those who have been convicted of criminal offences is a matter for national governments and the Commission has no competence in the matter.Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is a matter of common interest under Article K.1(7) of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union and while the Commission is fully associated with the work in this area, in accordance with Article K.3, it does not have a right of initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 433/96 by Philippe-Armand MARTIN to the Commission. Management of wine production
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MARTIN PHILIPPE
Subjects: common organisation of markets, viticulture













EUR-Lex - 91996E0433 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0433

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 433/96 by Philippe-Armand MARTIN to the Commission. Management of wine production  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0039 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0433/96 by Philippe-Armand Martin (UPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Management of wine productionArticle 6 of Regulation 822/87 ((OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1. )) lays down that all new planting of vines is prohibited until 31 August 1996.Regulation 1442/88 ((OJ L 132, 28.5.1988, p. 3. )) lays down that abandonment premiums are payable only until 31 August 1996.1. What does the Commission intend to propose for subsequent seasons?2. Could the Commission summarize the structural effects of these two measures?3. If the reform of the COM in wine has not been completed by 31 August 1996, what will the Commission do during the next growing season? When does it intend to inform producers about this?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1996)The ban on new plantings and the system of grubbing premiums will indeed expire on 31 August 1996, at the end of the current winegrowing year. The answer to the three questions on the subject from the Honourable Member are as follows:1. As part of the 1996/97 price package the Commission proposes that the ban on new plantings, and the grubbing premium, should be extended for one year. The primary aim is to allow work on the reform of the common organization of the market (COM) now in progress within the Council to continue.2. Regarding the effects of these two measures on winegrowing capacity, the Commission has the data which are regularly supplied by Member States. In view of the large amount of tabulated material prepared by the Commission this information will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of Parliament.3. As part of the 1996/97 price package the Commission proposes that the present system be extended for a further year if the Council fails to reach a decision on the proposal for reforming the COM in wine.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 419/96 by Yannos KRANIDIOTIS to the Council. Turkish provocation in the Aegean
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, KRANIDIOTIS
Subjects: Aegean Islands, Greece, International Court of Justice, Türkiye, pacifism, territorial law













EUR-Lex - 91996E0419 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0419

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 419/96 by Yannos KRANIDIOTIS to the Council. Turkish provocation in the Aegean  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0029 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (29 February 1996)Subject: Turkish provocation in the AegeanThe islet of Imia belongs to the Greek State and, more specifically, it forms part of the Dodecanese group of islands, pursuant to the Italian-Turkish agreement of 1932 and the 1947 Treaty of Paris when the Dodecanese were ceded to Greece.Nevertheless, as part of its constant policy of contesting the status of the Aegean, the Turkish Government is taking action to claim the islet of Imia. The Greek Government has protested to Turkey and has duly informed the Council of Ministers.What does the Council propose to do in support of the sovereign rights of an EU Member State?Joint Reply (25 June 1996)The General Affairs Council discussed the situation in the Aegean in February and expressed concern at the recent developments, which affect the Union as a whole and its relations with Turkey.The Presidency of the Council called on the parties to continue to exercise restraint and to refrain from any action liable to increase tension and from any demonstration of armed force.The Presidency of the Council also encouraged Greece and Turkey to establish between them a crisis-prevention mechanism and considered that the dispute and the territorial issues should be settled solely by the process of law, i.e. by the International Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 454/96 by Philippe MONFILS to the Commission. Protection of wolves in Europe - follow-up to Question 1046/95
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MONFILS
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Directive, Finland, Greece, Spain, application of EU law, protection of animal life













EUR-Lex - 91996E0454 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0454

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 454/96 by Philippe MONFILS to the Commission. Protection of wolves in Europe - follow-up to Question 1046/95  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0045 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/96 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Protection of wolves in Europe - follow-up to Question 1046/95On 30 May 1995 the Commission replied to Written Question 1046/95 ((OJ C 213, 17.8.1995, p. 34. )) by Jean Gol on the protection of wolves in Europe. This answer was unsatisfactory since the Commission merely pointed out that the derogations from the protection of wolves in Spain, Greece and Finland resulted, on the one hand, from discussions held in the Council and, on the other, from a reservation entered by Finland under the Bern Convention.1. Is the Commission adequately informed, not merely about the arguments used by these countries, but also of the fact that wolf populations in these three countries are afforded no protection whatsoever and that this problem must be remedied as a matter of urgency by amending the provisions of the Directive and removing the aforementioned derogations?2. Should the Commission not consider consulting independent experts who will be responsible for ascertaining in situ whether this species requires protection?3. What was the outcome of the infringement proceedings mentioned in the reply of 30 May 1995?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)1. The Commission will send a communication from the Ministry for Agriculture on the management of wolf (Canis lupus) populations in Finland direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament. The situation in Greece and Spain remains unchanged: the species remains heavily protected to the south of the 39th parallel and of the Duero respectively, and in 1996 the Commission has received no complaints in this area.2. Given the current situation regarding this species the Commission does not for the moment intend to consult any independent experts.3. The Commission continues to pursue infringement procedures against those Member States which have failed to communicate implementing legislation for Council Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). Since March 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden have all communicated certain legislation implementing the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 571/96 by Bernd LANGE to the Commission. Action by the European Community in preparation for the 'EXPO 2000' world exhibition in Hanover
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, LANGE
Subjects: Community budget, EU aid, Lower Saxony, budgetary procedure, new technology, trade event













EUR-Lex - 91996E0571 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0571

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 571/96 by Bernd LANGE to the Commission. Action by the European Community in preparation for the 'EXPO 2000' world exhibition in Hanover  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0042 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-0571/96 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Action by the European Community in preparation for the 'EXPO 2000' world exhibition in HanoverTo mark the millennium, the EXPO 2000 world exhibition will take place in the year 2000 in Hanover under the motto 'mankind - nature - technology'. It will provide the opportunity to develop and present comprehensive ideas for sustainable development. It will also give rise to considerable demand for future-oriented technologies and their implementation, not only in the Hanover region but also throughout the Union. Greater participation by the Community in the preparatory stages would be desirable.1. What activities are planned at Community level? To what extent is the Commission involved in national and regional preparations for EXPO 2000?2. What form might Commission involvement take? Might a small EXPO 2000 task force be established?3. Will the Commission propose a separate budget heading to support the preparatory activities for EXPO 2000?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)The Commission has accepted in principle a German invitation to participate in the universal exhibition which will take place in Hanover in 2000. This agreement in principle was given on the condition that, at the appropriate moment, the Council and the Parliament take decisions on the budget necessary for participation.The Commission and the Parliament are in close contact with the organisers of Hanover 2000 to define the most appropriate form of Community participation. Further, regular meetings of the Council's group on fairs and exhibitions keep the Commission informed of the progress the Member States are making in their preparations for Hanover 2000.A communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament is foreseen for 1996 and the Commission will examine the budgetary procedures in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 440/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Community aid for areas of Piedmont affected by flooding
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: EIB loan, EU aid, Piedmont, aid to undertakings, economic reconstruction, flood, small and medium-sized enterprises, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E0440 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0440

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 440/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Community aid for areas of Piedmont affected by flooding  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0440/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Community aid for areas of Piedmont affected by floodingBearing in mind that the Community has provided financial aid through the EIB to the areas of Piedmont affected by flooding in November 1994;- Having regard to the author's previous questions on this subject;- Noting that in the commune of S. Stefano Belbo, for example, no work has yet started on restoring the water courses, safeguarding riverside buildings or repairing the effects of landslides;Will the Commission:1. Provide a list of the communes which have received aid;2. Say how this aid has been used;3 Say who is responsible for any failure to use funds or any serious delays in their use?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1996)The European investment bank (EIB), the long term Community financing institution, provides loans for capital investment projects that support Community policy objectives. On 8th May 1995, the EIB signed the first tranche (ITL 600 000 million) of an approved ITL 1 200 000 million global loan with four banks, namely IMI, Banca mediocredito, Crediop and Banca nazionale del lavoro for the rehabilitation of infrastructure and production facilities damaged by the 1994 floods in Northern Italy.This EIB global loan finances investment supporting reconstruction in flooded areas under the provisions of Articles 2 and 8 (enterprises, including small and medium sized enterprises) of Italian Law 35/95. The EIB is therefore not involved in the financing of infrastructure of local and regional interest under the provision of Article 6 (Law 35/95), which concerns the local authorities financed through the Cassa dei depositi e prestiti.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 417/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. New Commission premises in Luxembourg
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, building industry, cost-effectiveness analysis, decision-making, real property, seat of institution, works contract













EUR-Lex - 91996E0417 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0417

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 417/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. New Commission premises in Luxembourg  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0037 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: New Commission premises in LuxembourgThere are reports in the press that the Commission is conducting negotiations with the German company Hochtief with a view to renting an office block, to be used as an annex to the Jean Monnet Building, which the company is now in the process of erecting in Luxembourg. The complex is 3 km away from the Commission's current premises and has 35 000 m2 of available office space situated on the upper floors of a huge shopping centre.1. Is it true that the Commission has promised to pay rent for 25 years, entailing a total cost of some LF 8 bn, and will not become the owner of the building?2. Does it not have the alternative possibility of acquiring a whole building for its exclusive use, adjacent to its current premises, for which the overall expenditure in a 15-year time-span would be approximately LF 5 bn, saving LF 6 bn compared with the first plan (LF 3 bn less than the rent set by Hochtief, plus ownership of the building)?3. Is it true that this second option has been rejected and, if so, for what reasons and a decision taken instead to conclude a lease contract with Hochtief, already under investigation for other shady deals?4. What calculations of financial advantages are inducing the Commission to forgo a saving of LF 6 bn?Answer given by Mr Liikanen (12 April 1996)1. The Commission has not given any commitment along the lines referred to by the Honourable Member.2. The Commission has always been interested in the possibility of acquiring a building on a site adjacent to its current premises. An unsolicited offer to that effect was made to it recently.3. This proposal has not been rejected. However, the builder has not yet confirmed the availability of the site nor the capacity of the proposed building. The builder will have to be selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 93/37/EEC ((OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993. )) relating to public works contracts.4. In any case, before committing itself, the Commission always carries out a cost/effectiveness analysis. At this stage, it cannot comment on this point.
Legislative resolution on the proposal for a Decision of the Council and the Commission on the conclusion of a Euro- Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (SEC(95)1719 - 10373/95 - C4-0562/95 - 95/0276(AVC)) (Assent procedure)
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: EU relations, Israel, agreement (EU), association agreement (EU)













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0021 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0021

Legislative resolution on the proposal for a Decision of the Council and the Commission on the conclusion of a Euro- Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (SEC(95)1719 - 10373/95 - C4-0562/95 - 95/0276(AVC)) (Assent procedure)  


Official Journal C 078 , 18/03/1996 P. 0032 





A4-0021/96Legislative resolution on the proposal for a Decision of the Council and the Commission on the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (SEC(95)1719 - 10373/95 - C4- 0562/95 - 95/0276(AVC))(Assent procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the proposal for a Decision of the Council and the Commission (SEC(95)1719 - 95/0276(AVC)),- having regard to the draft Euro-Mediterranean agreement with the State of Israel,- having regard to the Council's request for Parliament's assent pursuant to Article 228(3), second subparagraph, and Article 238 of the EC Treaty (10373/95 - C4-0562/95),- having regard to Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy, the Committee on External Economic Relations, the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Development and Cooperation (A4-0021/96),1. Gives its assent to the conclusion of the agreement;2. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the State of Israel.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 5/96 of 29 February 1996 amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), radio telecommunications, telecommunications








L_1996102EN.01004801.xml










25.4.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 102/48





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 5/96
of 29 February 1996
amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
Whereas Annex XI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 26/95 (1);
Whereas Council resolution 95/C 188/02 of 29 June 1995 on the further development of mobile and personal communications in the European Union (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 26b (Council resolution 94/C 379/04) in Annex XI to the Agreement:







‘26c.



395 Y 0722(02): Council resolution 95/C 188/02 of 29 June 1995 on the further development of mobile and personal communications in the European Union (OJ No C 188, 22. 7. 1995, p. 3).’





Article 2
The texts of resolution 95/C 188/02 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, annexed to the representative language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 1996, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.


Done at Brussels, 29 February 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 273, 16. 11. 1995, p. 47.

(2)  OJ No C 188, 22. 7. 1995, p. 3.